Same Vocabulary but a Different Dictionary?

When my children were young we lived in Germany for a few years. It was during the 1980’s when the dollar was strong, which meant that we had enough money to travel. We visited Austria, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Italy, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. The people in each of these countries spoke different languages and it was difficult trying to communicate with them. They used different words than I did to convey the same thing. On each trip we took a dictionary to help us translate that country’s language into English, but it wasn’t easy. Somehow we managed to get along and we thoroughly enjoyed our travels throughout Europe.

It wasn’t until after the Holy Spirit brought me to faith that I discovered I had another language barrier with the people around me. But this time I was interacting with Christians. The language barrier was less obvious than when in Europe because we were using the same words—but the meaning was different! Talk about confusing! Even though we used the same words, my understanding of what those words meant was very different than theirs. I realized that because I had grown up in a Mormon family I had been taught a very unique language. I discovered that Mormons speak the same vocabulary as Christians, but they use a different dictionary! Once I recognized that this was the problem it became a lot easier to communicate and to study the Bible.

It took me two years of very intensive Bible study to really understand just the basic truths! Since I was familiar with the Topical Guide in the back of my LDS KJV, I used that as my starting point for each concept or word. Often, simply by studying each passage listed and then reading them in context, I could come up with the true meaning. Once I had done that I would use the Nave’s Topical Guide. This guide always broadened my perspective and often gave me several key passages that had unfortunately been left out of the LDS Topical Guide. After going through the Nave’s I would turn to the Strong’s Concordance and look up every passage using the words suggested by each of the Topical Guides. It was very time-consuming but I loved every minute of it! I still study God’s Word this way (except I now have a computer) and the more I learn the more I desire to dig in and see what God wants me to learn.

The fact that Mormons speak many of the same words as Christians but use a different dictionary causes lots of misunderstandings. Over the next couple of weeks I plan on discussing some of these words and showing the two different meanings.

Advertisements

75 Comments

  1. geoff456 said,

    July 4, 2009 at 12:34 am

    personally, I prefer the “tropical guide” 🙂

    ~geoff

    sorry, i am feeling a little giddy on my vacation!

  2. shematwater said,

    July 6, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    So do I.

    However, while what is said is true to some extant, it is not as bad as most people think. In truth there are only a few words that are different, and most of them are nouns.

    It is also true that, in general, what the Christian world teaches as the definition of a word is part of the defenition in LDS doctrine, we have just expanded and explained it in more detail.

    Besides Heaven and Hell (and their corrisponding subterms of Paradise and Prison) I would like a list of words that we both use, but that we have diferent definitions for.

  3. catzgalore said,

    July 8, 2009 at 7:12 am

    Jesus Christ, for example. The LDS Jesus is different.
    The first article of faith states:
    “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”
    We can both say we believe that. But it means different things.

  4. shematwater said,

    July 8, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Okay. So, you give your definition, and then I will give mine, and let us compare them. I think it would be interesting to see how similar our beliefs are for a change, rather that focusing on the differences.

    (Oh, and if you are going to give your definition, please do not define it as “we don’t be as you do.” That is not a real definition, and is only used by those who want to stir up contention.)

  5. catzgalore said,

    July 8, 2009 at 10:15 pm

    Hard to give a quick definition– I haven’t forgotten nor am I avoiding this. Just still asking the Lord what He would have me say about Him. I will give you an answer tomorrow.

  6. catzgalore said,

    July 8, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    When I started thinking about what to say about Jesus, my first thought was the creeds that I recited as a child. I do believe in God the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord!

    Don’t think that every Christian thinks the same; I understand what I can, and leave the rest to the Lord; knowing that I will keep learning more about the Lord the longer I live. One of my favorite verses about the Lord is this: For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.(1 Corinthians 13: 12 NAS version)

    God-Jesus-Holy Spirit (Who is called by many names– some have studied this more, and that’s another subject!) created the heavens and the earth; He/They are One God. One in substance, different persons. The Father is fully God, Jesus is fully God, the Holy Spirit is fully God. No I don’t understand it all.. I see the evidence, I understand, yet not in a way that is easy to explain.
    He is:
    Supreme– the Only God, there is no other
    Eternal– He has always existed and always will. He had no beginning, was not created by something/someone else
    All Powerful, All Seeing, All Knowing
    Holy, undefiled
    Triune– meaning, One God, Three distinct persons… Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    No part of the godhead has a beginning or ending. For a time, Jesus came to earth in human form, but was still fully God as well as fully man. Each person has different functions; but they function in perfect unity.
    Sounds simple, but it isn’t. We humans cannot fully comprehend God. I think we will all have some surprises when we go to be with the Lord (or not). This is just the bare outline of what I believe; it cannot be expressed fully in a few sentences or paragraphs. I did not dig out a bunch of proof-texts because 1) there are so many! and 2) I expect you to refute what I’m saying anyway.

    I’ve learned a lot since I was a child. I have read the Bible and seen these truths for myself and not just something from my parents (or in my case, my grandma!) I don’t claim any denomination, although I have been a part of several. There came a time in my life when I realized what a sinner I was. I came to see that the God who loved me (and protected me) from childhood still did! He called me to repent of my sins, to turn around and live for HIM instead of living for ME. He comforts me daily; He shows me the way; He gives me songs in the dark times. I don’t understand all I know about our Creator. Every day I learn a little more about His Majesty, His Power, His Grace. Every day I learn to serve Him better. Every day He becomes more precious to me and I look forward to knowing Him fully when I go to dwell with Him.

    Okay then. Your turn.

  7. shematwater said,

    July 9, 2009 at 11:22 am

    In this particular thread I have no desire to refute anything, so go ahead and quote what you want.

    Here is my definition, just off the top of my head.

    Jesus created the heavens and the earth
    He is one with the Father and the Holy Ghost. One in purose, one in power, one in knowledge.
    He is separate from the Father and the Holy Ghost in Body.
    Jesus is fully God. He was the God of the Old Testiment, and is the God of the New.
    Jesus is under the Father in authority, and refers to him for direction.
    Jesus is Eternal. He has always existed and always will. He had no beginning.
    Jesus is All Powerful, possessing all power that any being could possess.
    Jesus is All Knowing, having a perfect knowledge of all things (including each individual who ever lived on this Earth.
    Jesus is Holy, undefiled. He lived a perfect and sinless life.
    Jesus is perfectly just.
    Jesus is perfectly Merciful.
    Jesus is my Elder Brother, and the only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh.
    Jesus is my savior, and the savior of all the children of my Father in Heaven (regardless of what planet they may live).
    Jesus has perfect love for all of God’s children, and all of God’s creations. (That’s right, he loves Satan just as much as he loves me.)

    I probably could go on, but this is sufficient for right now.

    At this point I would ask you not to see how many things are different, but how many things are the same between what you said and what I said.

  8. osbornekristen said,

    July 10, 2009 at 10:17 pm

    I really am not asking this to antagonize. I am just wondering 🙂

    What about the term “hot drinks” that are taught to be avoided in the Word of Wisdom….

    When I think of “hot drinks,” I include hot cocoa, warm milk, cider, coffee and other drinks that could burn your tongue.

    Smith taught that “hot drinks” were coffee and tea….right?

    Does cold, ice tea count as well since it is cold?
    What about de-caf coffee? Is that okay?

    I am also wondering if the prophet will be coming out with any new revelations considering the new studies on the health benefits of coffee/caffeine?

    Please check out this article. Both of my father’s parents suffered from dementia…..so these studies are very encouraging for him…..an avid coffee drinker!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-555131/Cup-coffee-day-Alzheimers-away-say-scientists.html

    What do you think the church’s stance will be in light of this “hot drink” being proven as a health benefit?

  9. catzgalore said,

    July 12, 2009 at 8:43 am

    On another thread, someone was threatened by the statement that their church’s doctrine has changed. I think it is irrefutable that their doctrine has changed. They emphatically do not think that. However. The thought came to me that maybe they are using a different definition of “doctrine”! Because, using the dictionary definition of doctrine, it HAS changed.

    First, the dictionary definition from two sources.

    A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
    A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
    A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
    Something taught; a teaching.

    doctrine

    the explication and officially acceptable version of a religious teaching. The development of doctrines and dogmas has significantly affected the traditions, institutions, and practices of the religions of the world. Doctrines and dogmas also have influenced and been influenced by the ongoing development of secular history, science, and philosophy.

    good old Webster’s

    1 teaching, instruction
    2 a: something that is taught b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c: a principle of law established through past decisions d: a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e: a military principle or set of strategies

    In MY head, “doctrine” is kind of like a particular church body’s interpretation. Different denominations, for example, have doctrinal statements. Not all of it comes from the Bible, it comes from discussions of church leaders, historical documents of the church, and changes with the times.

    Here are some examples of doctrinal statements. I have not read them in depth, and don’t endorse any particularly, I may or may not agree. This is just to clarify what I believe “doctrine” is.

    http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/

    http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=6907

    So… what is the Mormon definition of “doctrine”?

  10. catzgalore said,

    July 12, 2009 at 10:33 am

    Something I found after I hit “submit comment” and I know that you think this is anti-Mormon so you may not want to go here, and I understand that. It was written by a 4th generation LDS woman, “great-granddaughter of Mormon pioneer and polygamist John D. Lee, personal bodyguard to Brigham Young. As a young Mormon, her goal was to marry, and after death become a heavenly queen, eternally sealed to her earthly husband, producing spiritual babies together in a vast mansion.” (from that page)

    It is a list of Mormon (I’ll call them teachings) from different Mormon sources. I also know that some sources that WERE accepted are no longer accepted as authoratative (part of why it seems to me that doctrines have changed– why are they no longer authorized if they once were?) I’ll say TEACHINGS have changed, because you have to at least agree to that, don’t you?)

    http://mmoutreachinc.com/mormons/marriage.html

  11. geoff456 said,

    July 12, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    KO and Catz,

    here is the opening line of the coffee article:

    “A cup of coffee a day could keep Alzheimer’s disease at bay, research suggests.”

    Notice the word “could” and the word “suggests”, yet your final comment is:
    “What do you think the church’s stance will be in light of this “hot drink” being PROVEN as a health benefit?”(emphasis mine) PROVEN???

    One study does NOT make it true. (And WHO cares anyway??)

    LDS people are among the healthiest people on earth. They are free from addictive behaviors such as alcoholism and smoking. Caffeine has been proven to be addictive as well. I guess we have to die from something…so maybe it will Alzheimers! The bottom line is this: There is a prophet of God on the earth. He has direct communication with the Savior who directs His church. You are free to believe it or not. Just don’t tell us what WE believe…because YOU DON”T KNOW WHAT WE BELIEVE. You can tell us what YOU believe…..but don’t try to draw conclusions from something you read on a website and tell us what WE believe!
    Oh and BTW:
    I BELONG to the Church….. I don’t WORSHIP the Church. (telling me what I do again!)

    If you really want to know the truth, why don’t you take the missionary lessons and get it firsthand? digging up obscure websites that may or may not even be from the source listed is just plain dumb and unproductive. I could start a website called “Christians worshipping Cats” and sign Catz’ name. would that make it true???? NO!

    don’t be a “fraidy cat”! bet you couldn’t sit through ONE missionary lesson!!

    ~Geoff

  12. geoff456 said,

    July 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    Catz,

    I just browsed through the website you espoused. WOW, what rot! I guess we could say that YOU are obsessed by sex because YOU are a mother?

    That was actually good for a laugh, but then again it makes my skin crawl. There was not one scripture that wasn’t tampered with, and not one that was interpreted correctly. It was pure garbage from start to finish and the idiot that wrote it does not spell very well either! (note the book title repeated several times: Moronism, Mama and Me……which, come to think of it, is actually a better title!)

    Sick stuff Catz, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even reading it. And if you believed it you are worse off than I even imagined.

    If YOU think that bears ANY relationship to the LDS Church YOU are certifiable! Granny is dead and gone, thank goodness, but her “legacy” lives on. I wonder if she tells everyone that her famous ancestor was excommunicated and executed for his part in a heinous crime??

    ~Geoff

  13. osbornekristen said,

    July 12, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    Wow Catz! I just read that article you posted! I have no words……I just wonder how folks can say that these statements are false when there are so many quotes to back them up by so many LDS leaders/prophets.

    How does one get around saying that Mormons don’t believe these things when the men who are supposed to be led directly by God publish these statements?

    Now, I am even more sad for my family involved in such deception.

  14. shematwater said,

    July 13, 2009 at 11:52 am

    OSBORN

    To answer your question, I tell you to concider the time in which this was written. Did they have hot chocolate? Did they have any of these drinks, and how common were they.
    Second, you answered the question in quoting Joseph Smith. what was menat was tea and coffee. This includes iced tea, as I doubt they had much ice back then. It also includes all coffee, becuase nowhere does this specify that it is because of the caffiene.

    Yes, we are counselled not to drink caffiene. Caffiene is an addictive drug (mildly, but still addictive). All things that are addictive are unhealth. Addictions destroy the mind and spirit, regardless of any possible benefit to the body, and should therefore be avoided.

    Now, to save you a question, since most people ask it, chocoloate does not have caffiene. It contains Theobromine, which is a xanthines chemical, just like caffiene, but is not addictive. (see http://www.xocoatl.org/caffeine.htm)

    CATZ

    People can claim what they want, that does not mena they are right, nor does it mean they should be trusted.

    LDS doctrine has never changed. Doctrine is what is taught to be true, not what is commanded in practice. The doctrine of the church is that Polygamy is a Celestial Law, ordained by God to be practiced when God decrees it, and at no other time. (D&C 132 for the divinity of it, Jacob 2: 30 for when it is to be practiced) We have not changed this. God has simply exercised his authority to command the early leaders to practice it, but to command us not to.

    This is what I mean when I say the doctrine has not been changed. People think that if you stop practicing something you have to staop believing in it, or at least change what you believe concerning it. This is only true if the original doctrine does not allow room for the change in practice, which it did.

    The same can be said of any doctrine taught by the Early leaders. Just as with the blacks and the Priesthood. It was never taught that they would never hold teh priesthood. It was taught the time was not yet fulfilled for them to hold the priesthood, but would be in the future. Thus this change was again, not a change in doctrine, as the doctrine had said the change would come.

    It is the same as the animal sacrifices in the Bible. The doctrine behind the sacrifice was not changed with the atonement, but the practice was changed.

    If you are going to accuse us of changing our doctrine, please understand exactly what was originally taught before you do.

  15. osbornekristen said,

    July 13, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    I guess I was asking…..now that coffee has proven health benefits…..will the church ever change its stance on it its no coffee recommendation? I mean if a doctor suggests it as a way to help prevent serious memory loss……doesn’t that outway the fact that it contains caffiene?

  16. catzgalore said,

    July 13, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    I’m reading this stuff in the Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants, Mormon Doctrine (McConkie) and the Journal of Discourses– but I found out that J of D is no longer “authorized” but to be considered only historical! That isn’t doctrine change? To me, yes. To you, no.

    It doesn’t seem too clear to me in the Mormon faith. Do Mormons not read the writings of the prophets? I would want to know church history, but then I’m a history buff. But how would I know what the truth was? It might be best to only go by what the current prophet is saying and think that all that came before were false!

    Your post confirmed to me that your word “doctrine” is not the same as the word “doctrine” I know. What you are talking about is not what Christians, or even English language dictionaries say is “doctrine”. Your definition is uniquely Mormon!! By changing word meanings, you can say things that SOUND good but in reality you don’t mean anything close to what I understand! It SOUNDS like Mormon is similar to Christian– speaking the same language– but the reality is, there are secret Mormon meanings! No wonder it is so hard to have a discussion! Doctrine does not equal Doctrine.

    Your prophets have had new revelations, but a complete turnaround is just a “change in practice”. That way, it can be claimed that doctrine never changes.

    It reminds me of my 5 year old nephew. He wanted to jump in my mom’s beanbag chair and she said “no.” So he started just falling into the chair. When she got upset and said, “I told you, no jumping in the beanbag chair!” He said, “I wasn’t jumping! I was TIMBERING!”

    You can call them by different names, or call different things by the same name. All you get is confusion, and misunderstanding, and deception; even if it is unintentional on your part.

    “Doctrine” in the tradition of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE is the summary of what the church teaches. THAT has changed.

    Here’s something the church once taught:
    Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.” (Mormon Doctrine, page 527, 1966 Edition)

    Now, they can. But does this mean that blacks may again be excluded? This wasn’t a change in doctrine, only in practice? Meaning, reversible? You believe polygamy may be practiced again! Why not exluding those with black skin?

    And about David….
    In Doctrine and Covenants, section 132, it says:
    27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

    IF you believe that verse, then David won’t even be in OUR (lower) heaven, he will be damned, that is, IN HELL. So even though He committed the “unpardonable sin” according to the Mormon faith, He doesn’t get the full punishment, according to you, OR you are saying, all of “us” are really damned. But before, you said we weren’t! Can you see why it seems confusing?

  17. geoff456 said,

    July 14, 2009 at 8:11 am

    Catz,

    1. History written by various members of the Church, either Christian or Mormon does not constitute “doctrine”. Doctrine is in the Scriptures.

    2. Prophets do NOT contradict each other. do your homework.

    3. Re-read Shem’s ENTIRE post #13. He answers many of your questions. He that ears to hear, let him hear.

    4. “damnation” means a stop in progress. if you dam the river, you stop its progress. Also, the passage you quoted contains the words: “after ye have recieved my new and everlasting covenant”. People that make covenants are under a heavy obligation to keep them. this is not the “run of the mill” guy on the street. This is an endowed, faithful, active member of the Church who then GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING HE KNOWS TO BE TRUE. That is a big problem with the Lord! Also, entering into “my Glory”, means the highest kingdom, not just “heaven”.
    5. It is only confusing because YOU assume the worst. Try LISTENING with your heart, and assume the best. 🙂 It makes perfect sense to MILLIONS of people……surely you are capable of understanding (if not believing) it too.

    ~Geoff

  18. shematwater said,

    July 14, 2009 at 9:10 am

    OSBORNE

    My answer was simple, though I confess not very clear. No, they will not change it. Read the article you site again. In moderation it can be healthy, but more than a few cups a day runs risks to health, some that won’t show until much later in life (I know a woman who was told to stop drink ing coffee by her doctor when in her fifties because the long exposure had cause serious damage). This is all fine, but as I said, Caffiene is addictive, making coffee addictive, and thus to restrain yourself to only a few cups a day can become difficult. Also, with the long term effects it will take many years to prove anything, and even then it will really not be proven to cause anything.

    CATZ

    What I said, if you pay attention, fits perfectly with the definition of Doctrine. As you put it in your last post “Doctrine” in the tradition of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE is the summary of what the church teaches.” That has not changed. As I pointed out on the two biggest things that people want to accuse us on, nothing changed in what was taught.

    You also say “Now, they can. But does this mean that blacks may again be excluded? This wasn’t a change in doctrine, only in practice? Meaning, reversible? You believe polygamy may be practiced again! Why not exluding those with black skin?”

    Your questions show a lack of understanding in what I said, and what the church teaches. It has allows been taught that Polygamy will be lived when the Lord commands it, giving God the authority to bring it back any time he wants. However, it was never taught that it was possible for Blacks to be denied the priesthood again. It was taught that at some point in the Future this restriction would be lifted, but this does not Give god the authority to reverse that lifting once it has happened.
    (And no, I am not limiting God, he has limited himself if you care to read all that he has to say. I am simply repeating what he has taught.)
    (I will get back to you on the Mormon Doctrine quote)

    As to David, while Geoff did a good job, let us look at the quote you give again.
    Notice the phrase “AND ASSENT UNTO MY DEATH.” This is not taughting about someone who simply commits murder. This is talking about someone who would be willing to kill Christ if they had lived at that time. This is someone (as Joseph Smith puts it) who thirsts after the blood of the saints. David does not fit this because he did do everything he could to repent of the murder.
    See D&C 132: 39 where it says David received his portion. Yet in the quote you gave these people receive no part of God’s glory.

  19. catzgalore said,

    July 14, 2009 at 10:25 am

    1. Dictionary definition of “doctrine” (also MY definition of doctrine!)
    A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma. Something taught; a teaching.
    2. The contradictions and changes are so OBVIOUS… do your homework.

    Was not the Journal of Discourses originally presented as principles that were to be accepted, or believed? Was not the book, “Mormon Doctrine” accepted as DOCTRINE? If not, why is it called “Mormon Doctrine”??

    Can’t you see that according to the rest of the world, “doctrine” is what the church teaches and is not limited to the scriptures? Your “doctrine” means something else. What does DOCTRINE mean to a Mormon? Only what Joseph Smith taught? Only what is in the “authorized” writings? What happens to fresh revelations? Who chooses which will stay? What about the other writings of prophets of your church? Were they not considered from God? If so, why are they no longer followed? If not, how can they be considered prophets? The church is expected to follow the new guidelines, aren’t they? Who is the final authority of what the church teaches?

    Why does the Mormon church change the meaning of the word “doctrine”? It is only by the MORMON definition of “doctrine” that the Mormon church’s doctrine has not changed! From MY point of view (or anyone not LDS) it seems like you are incredibly brainwashed until I realize that your definition of “doctrine” is entirely different than mine (or the dictionary’s!).

    Don’t you love it that I ask so many questions?

    Like it or not, God has called me here. I really want to quit talking to you, but God keeps giving me more to say. I have to ignore your belittling and not run away when I am attacked.

    I have sincerely prayed, Lord, if the LDS church is true, show me! All I have found in your scriptures is deception, confusion, misleading writings, contradictions, and a charismatic, self-promoting, egotistical “prophet” whose “prophecies” were to benefit himself. And mostly, I read from the lds site– your scriptures, your teachings. Some of the videos are tear-jerkers, some are wonderful testimonies– some of your church teachings are really good! I like how the family, modesty, purity are emphasized, and there are great resources. I see good networking for moms and dads, excellent advice for emergency preparedness, LOTS of good. We Christians could learn a lot!

    I do pray for you daily, that God would show you HIMSELF through Jesus and not Smith. I pray for you, and Vonnie, and your children and grandchildren, that the Light of the Lord would shine on you. That, through God’s mercy, you would see His amazing Grace.

  20. geoff456 said,

    July 14, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Catz,

    Maybe God HAS called YOU here TO LEARN! Ever think of that?

    You have YET to tell either Shem or I what “Doctrine” you think has changed!

    Shem has spent tons of time explaining to you the “doctrine” you don’t understand. Such as the priesthood authority to all men. He has made it perfectly clear that IT HAS NOT CHANGED. So what don’t you understand??

    We DO believe that Doctrine is the body of principles presented for belief. It just has to be presented by and authorized by the Church and its leaders. Even the Book “Mormon Doctrine” has a disclaimer in the front saying that it is the work of the Author, not the Church.(do you own a copy?) As to why it is named “Mormon Doctrine”, I imagine Bruce R. McConkie can name his book anything he wants. It does give a general view of our distinct doctrine. (it is an invaluable book to converts of the Church, like me 🙂 ) The approved Doctrine of the Church is found in the Scriptures, the Conference talks given twice a year and the few books that are approved, such as “Jesus the Christ” and “The Articles of Faith”. The Presidency of the Church does not have the time to read and approve everything that is written! There may be books and histories that are perfect in every way, but unless they are approved by the Presidency of the Church they are not considered Doctrine.

    You get all huffy over nothing! The “Mormon Church” has NOT changed the meaning of the word “doctrine”. YOU have failed to understand that the members of the Church DO NOT speak for the Lord! HIS CHOSEN PROPHETS do! Do you speak for God?? You may bear witness of what you know and understand, but you do not (nor do I) speak for God. So, quit mixing up what the Church says (approved Doctrine) and what some LDS member says, or worse yet, some idiot loser like Granny Greer, or whatever her name was, says!!
    As for Joseph Smith, He was the first prophet of this dispensation. Yes, his writings are ALL doctrine. He was an instrument in the Lord’s hands to restore the Gospel to the earth. Much of the doctrine of the early church had been lost and/or changed. The doctrine of the Trinity is a PERFECT example. You will NOT find that in the Bible because it was NEVER a doctrine taught in the days of Christ.

    Are you at all familiar with revelations from the Church? The Prophet very rarely has anything “earth shattering” to say. He teaches us to keep the commandments, to do what is right, to love each other, to serve, to bless, to teach, to bear witness of the Lord, to fight for what is right, to strengthen our homes, marriages and families, to keep ourselves morally clean and pure, to take care of our bodies, to dress modestly……ALL things that we have heard for years and years. There isn’t a matter of “what stays” and what is thrown out. The Gospel is the same yesterday, today and forever! The laws and ordinances DO NOT CHANGE.

    Can you name anything that came from a prophet that has changed? YOU CAN’T because there is NOTHING!!

    You can disagree with us all you want….but it is disingenious to keep up the yakkity yakking about “LDS change this, you are brainwashed, etc”
    Can’t we just agree to disagree without you (and KO and CG19) trying to tell us what we believe????

    Oh, and about all the “good” we do….were you just throwing me a bone or were you actually impressed?….because you know what the Bible says, “by their fruits ye shall know them!!”

    and here was the understatement of the day:”We Christians could learn a lot!” I loved THAT admission!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    ~Geoff

  21. catzgalore said,

    July 14, 2009 at 11:10 pm

    I’m not trying to tell you what you believe; just asking about what your church teaches. There’s a difference. As I read, things jump out at me. Like David not getting his exaltation. But really, goody goody!! We get David in Heaven with US!! I LOVE his Psalms! We will enjoy praising the Lord together!

    I didn’t say you WERE brainwashed. I said it SEEMED that way until I realized that we don’t speak the same language. DOCTRINE to you is much more limited than the dictionary definition; so no wonder it didn’t make sense when I said that your doctrine changed. OF COURSE the Mormon church doesn’t teach that there are men on the moon any more; YOU don’t consider that “doctrine” but it was taught by the church! The missionaries in the fifties taught that to new or prospective converts!! THAT teaching has changed. But of course there’s a reason the church doesn’t teach that any more– it has been proved false! There are no men dressed like Quakers on the moon! It was spoken by an ordinary human, not a prophet. It was a vivid imagination, not a word of the Lord. If the mormons could discredit that person, I wouldn’t blame them. But it was Brigham Young!

    disingenious?? ah, DISINGENUOUS. It is not “candid or straightforward” to keep yakkity yakking? I thought I knew what that word meant. I looked it up in the dictionary, your sentence made no sense. It does mean what I thought it meant, but yours must be a Mormon definition. 😉 You should get a good dictionary so you can find out how the rest of the world defines (and spells) things. Maybe you would understand why we seem so stupid to you.

    Another word that has Mormon and non-Mormon meanings.
    DAMNATION
    GEOFF said — “damnation” means a stop in progress. if you dam the river, you stop its progress…

    Everybody else– “damnation”
    Condemnation to everlasting punishment; doom.
    Everlasting punishment.
    Failure or ruination incurred by adverse criticism.

    NOT THE SAME!!

    and the word that you confused with damnation:
    damming
    A barrier constructed across a waterway to control the flow or raise the level of water.
    A body of water controlled by such a barrier.
    A barrier against the passage of liquid or loose material, as a rubber sheet used in dentistry to isolate one or more teeth from the rest of the mouth.
    An obstruction; a hindrance.
    tr.v., dammed, dam·ming, dams.
    To hold back or confine by means of a dam.
    To close up; obstruct: He tried to dam his grief.

    It wouldn’t matter what I would point out. You would find some explanation as to why it isn’t the same as it was. Some word or the other won’t mean the same. The “doctrine” didn’t change, but the “practice” changed. The teaching of the church changed, what the church did changed, what the leaders did changed, but the DOCTRINES didn’t change. You are right- according to YOUR definition of “doctrine”. But things still changed!

    We Christians could learn a lot– about good recipes, good food storage suggestions, activities to do with children, etc. I wasn’t speaking about the Lord here. There are lots of good resources. I AM impressed with that. But NONE of that is the fruit of the Spirit.

    We could agree to disagree– you could do that, and just stop posting. Of course, that woodent be any fun, wood it? 🙂 🙂 😉

  22. catzgalore said,

    July 14, 2009 at 11:52 pm

    And yes, God has brought me here to learn. Just not to learn what YOU think I should learn. I’ve learned more compassion, I’ve been reminded just how wonderful Jesus’ gift of LIFE is to me; I’ve been reminded of His sweet Grace.

    I’ve seen that it is only by God’s mercy that I have not been deceived by false prophets, Mormon or otherwise.

    I’ve learned that Mormons speak a far different language than I do; I’ve learned that even when you spell out the differences, they will not usually see.

    I’ve learned that I should NEVER get into a “religious” discussion with my son and daughter in law and just love them and pray for them fervently. I need to pray for ALL LDS people fervently! Especially those who are starting to see the truth and are devastated. I see how their families sometimes abandon them, and how their whole lives are turned upside down.

    I’ve dug more deeply into the Bible than I have for awhile. It is motivating me to be more ready to answer. I’ve been reminded that I have so much to learn! You have challenged me to think; to not believe something just because I have always believed it, but to search the scriptures (the Bible) for the answers.

    Yes I have learned a lot. I have changed some things that I believed. I have studied definitions of words. I have read in the Bible, and read some Mormon scriptures as well. I have had a lot of lightbulb moments.

    So thank you for your comments. Indeed, I HAVE learned a lot.

  23. shematwater said,

    July 15, 2009 at 8:56 am

    GEOFF

    You just have a way with words that astounds me sometimes. It is beautiful.

    CATZ

    By the way, I thought you should know that Elder McConkie was severely repremanded for printing this book, and the current Prophet, David O. McKay, admitted that there were errors in it. I direct you to this page http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon193.htm.

    As to the Journal of Discourses, I think you need to understand what constitutes scripture, and what constitutes a standard work. Scripture is all things that were inspired by God and written by his prophets. The Standard Works are those writtings which the church uses on a daily basis as the standard for their teaching.
    At one time the Journal of Discourses was made a standard work, and was used as such. However, as the content of the talked recorded in it frequently deal with what is known as “The Misteries of Heaven” it was dropped as a standard work when the church spread greater distances and modern techology brought the General Conferences to the public.

    Brigham Young taught “When your face is turned from the body, let mysteries alone, for this is the only place for you to be corrected if wrong. Preach the simple, unadorned truth; work out your salvation with diligence, and do that which will guarantee you a warranted deed, an undeniable title to eternal lives.”

    When I was in High School I was one of about six members that attended there. Now, while in College, there are more, but we are still away from the Body. Even in Utah, where the church is centered, there are too many people not of the Body. Thus, the mysteries which are taught in the Journal of Discourses are no longer appropriate for general discussion, or standards of teaching. This does not mean they are no longer scripture, only that what they teach is not appropriate from the world we live in.

    However, we are still counseled to learn all we can, and if we feel we are ready to learn these misteries we have every right, and in truth are incouraged to read them and learn. But we are not to teach them. As Geoff said, we are not the spokesmen for God. We cannot be corrected it we are wrong.

  24. osbornekristen said,

    July 15, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Hmmm…. It seems to me that THIS is a significant change in the BK of Mormon’s intro. My hubby’s copy of the Mormon doctrines says that the “Laminites were the PRINCIPAL ancestors of the American Indians.” Now, the church has edited the intro for new publications saying that “they are AMONG the ancestors”…………..

    Come on guys……this is obviously a BIG change due to the DNA evidence that has proved this theory false. I realize that FARMS is still holding on to the hope that they may still find something to help them recover from this embarassing discovery. So, they have made this little change to save face.

    From a news article I found:
    “A one-word change in the introduction to a 2006 edition of the Book of Mormon has reignited discussion among some Latter-day Saints about the book’s historicity, geography and the descendants of those chronicled within its pages

    Past LDS Church leaders, particularly former church President Spencer W. Kimball, have made such statements, which have been supported by the introduction page in the Book of Mormon. Past editions of that page say all of the people chronicled in the book “were destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.” The new introduction reads much the same but says the Lamanites “are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

    Last year’s change “takes into account details of Book of Mormon demography which are not known,” according to church spokesman Mark Tuttle. “The change will be included in the next edition of the Book of Mormon printed by the church.”

    The change is significant for those who have questioned the book’s claim to be a historical record of people who migrated to the Americas from Jerusalem, rather than a creation of LDS Church founder Joseph Smith, who said he translated it from plates given to him by an angel from God.
    Claims in recent years by LDS anthropologist Thomas Murphy and former LDS molecular biologist Simon Southerton regarding the lack of a genetic connection to Hebrew blood in American Indians have caused spirited debate in some quarters about the book’s origins.

    Another change in the book’s introduction may be of interest to those who question whether Latter-day Saints are Christians, but church officials declined comment about when that change was made.

    The second sentence of the introduction in many editions says the book is “a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.”

    Please don’t make excuses for this………..It is a change…….it is important…….it DOES change the historical account…………it is what it is!

  25. catzgalore said,

    July 15, 2009 at 11:36 pm

    You are quoting from an anti-Mormon site, and in the past these sites have been called liars– and not to be trusted. What makes this one different? Not a mocking question, a serious one! How do you know what to trust?

    Thank you for the clarification of how and why the approved, appropriate works, teachings, publications (however you define what your church agrees is the current “voice” of your church) have changed. I understand that your opinion is that it never really changed, it is just the perspective and/or practice that changed. Is that a clear understanding of what you are saying? Understand that it is difficult because we assume our words mean the same when they don’t.

  26. shematwater said,

    July 16, 2009 at 11:32 am

    OSBORNE

    When it comes to DNA testing there are a few assumptions that have to be made for this to be accurate.

    First, that we can identify the desendents of the Isrealites.
    Second, that these desendants have a pure genetic ancestry (no mixing of races).
    Third, that we can identify the desendants of the Lamanites.
    Forth, that these desendants have a pure genetic ancestry (no mixing of races).

    As to the first assumption, can you really claim to know all those who are descendants from the Isrealites who lived 2600 years ago? Can you actually go through all the world and say, these are their desendants? No. You can’t.
    As to the second assumption, can you really claim that any of these decendants are pure decendants, that their genetics have not been mixed with other races? I am decended from Joseph through Ephriam. Do my genetics carry any resemblance to the Middle East? I doubt it, as I am from what would be called “Pure European” descent.
    As to the third assumption, this is a little easier than the first, but carries the same basic problems, so again, unprovable.
    As to the third, while the mixing of genes has only occured in last 600 years instead of 2600, it has still occured, so how pure are the genetics.

    On top of this the Lamanites were cursed with black skin, thus their genetics were altered by God himself, so those who live now would not have the same genetics as the Isrealites.

    So, I really don’t care what they say, it really doesn’t matter.

    As to the change in the introduction of the Book of Mormon, the change is so minor that it really seems rediculous to harp on it. Principal means the majority, a great majority, but it does not say that all. Among means some, but does not give an indication of amount. So, either way, it has been admitted that we don’t know how many people are in the ancestry of the American Indians. What’s the problem?
    The Lamanites are the earliest of their ancestors, but we do not know if there are other groups who came after the times of the Book of Mormon. We know that the Vikings found America sometime before Columbus. It is possible that the Eskimos came from Asia at some later date and migrated south.
    Still, there is no real change. It is like saying a color is red, and then later say it is magenta. The difference doesn’t truly matter, except to those whose only desire is it destroy you, and so they grasp at anything they can get.

    CATZ

    I used the site for two reasons. One, it is well known that Elder McConkie was repremanded, so what would be the point in denying it. Two, it was the only site that I could find in the time I had that presented copies of the letters.
    Not all sites are liars, many are just misguided by the others that are liars. Then you get the rare few who actually do the best they can to present things in an unbiased way.

    From what you said you didn’t understand what I was talking about. You seem to be content to believe the lies concerning the church, even when they are proven false, by your own words at that.

    We have the exact same understanding of the word Doctrine, and you know it. Our understanding parts when you claim the church changes doctrine, because they haven’t. Doctrine is what is taught, not was is practiced. I know you find it hard to separate the two concepts, but they are very separate, even by the definitions of Doctrine you give. It is not just my opinion, but a clear fact.

  27. geoff456 said,

    July 16, 2009 at 11:57 am

    KO,

    Please explain to me why DNA is different for every man/woman on earth?

    After all, if the Bible is correct, EACH of us is a descendant of Noah. Shouldn’t we ALL have the SAME DNA???

    BTW, not ALL of the Book of Mormon people were Lamanites. There were Nephites, Zoramites, Jacobites, Mulekites, Jaredites, etc.

    Please explain to me how an unlearned (I know you are tired of that word) young man of 23 years old, with NO worldly experience and NO internet, NO library and NO resources could “make up” the Book of Mormon in 75 days?
    THEN stand by it and GIVE his life for it?? Face it, the Book of Mormon is a big problem for non-believers because it could have ONLY come from God. There is NO other earthly explanation! (are you aware that there are extensive studies of the Book of Mormon and it shows an ancient style of writing called chiasmus? Did you know that it shows multiple writing styles consistent with the different authors that the Book purports to have? Did you know that it contains hebrew idioms and “parallelisms”?) You better research the FARMS website a little better!

    Joseph Smith was NOT capable of “writing” the Book of Mormon. He translated it by the Gift and Power of God. I,for one, am SO grateful that I know he is a prophet of God and have opportunity to live in a time when the Book of Mormon is upon the earth!

    You can nitpit at semantics, KO, but you cannot prove anything by it. IF what you said is true; So what if a word was changed??? The Church has nothing to hide! The Church itself FUNDS research. We are NOT afraid of what they find. My testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ comes through the Holy Ghost, not dirt! I do not care what they do or do not dig up! I, and millions of other members of the Church do not need to see “proof” that the Book of Mormon is true because we LIVE the Gospel and SEE the blessings it brings to us each day. We go to the TEMPLE and feel the Spririt. We HAVE witnessed miracles, and KNOW that our leaders are inspired by God. You are missing out on so many blessings because of your negative attitude and closed, locked and sealed mind!!

    Good LUCK!! YOU are going to need it!! Your coke-drinking mother in law is MILES ahead of you and you don’t even know it!

    ~Geoff

  28. catzgalore said,

    July 16, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    I asked for words today, and here is what God gave me. It is from an old Irish traditional hymn, probably from the 8th century. I pray for you this sort of faith.

    Be Thou my vision, O Lord of my heart;
    Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art.
    Thou my best thought, by day or by night,
    Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.

    Riches I heed not, nor man’s empty praise,
    Thou mine inheritance, now and always:
    Thou and Thou only, first in my heart,
    High King of heaven, my Treasure Thou art.

    I sure don’t know everything. My testimony is that I know that I am loved by the Creator of the Universe, and that in itself is way beyond comprehension. I also know that the Savior died in my place, also beyond what I can imagine. I also know that the Holy Spirit dwells within me. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit– ONE GOD.

    That’s really the bottom line. One God or many gods? Damming or damning, doctrine or doctrine, men on the moon or polygamy. They don’t mean anything. We can discuss such things all day and never get anywhere.

  29. shematwater said,

    July 17, 2009 at 11:38 am

    I would still like a regular Christian to compare the two definitions given in the beginning of this thread (of Jesus Christ) and tell me the percentage that is different and the percentage that is the same. After all, wasn’t that the whol purpose of the original article, to compare defininitions?

  30. catzgalore said,

    July 17, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Monday. 🙂

  31. catzgalore said,

    July 19, 2009 at 9:21 am

    How you described Jesus is very similar to what the Bible teaches.

    Before I can compare, please answer the following questions:

    Did Jesus ALONE create the heavens and the earth?

    When you say He is one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, is he COMPLETELY ONE? When you say He is fully God, do you mean fully THE ONE GOD or a separate god?

    When you say the “only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh” what do you mean?

    Are you saying that there are worlds everywhere and Jesus lived and died on each of them?

  32. geoff456 said,

    July 19, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Hey Catz,

    I am going to take a crack at these questions:

    Did Jesus ALONE create the heavens and the earth?

    Jesus created the heavens and the earth under the direction of Heavenly Father. Does that mean he was ALONE?? I don’t know. I assume He was capable of using His priesthood authority to do it without help. But was He ALONE??? I don’t know, and frankly, I don’t care.

    When you say He is one with the Father and the Holy Ghost, is he COMPLETELY ONE? When you say He is fully God, do you mean fully THE ONE GOD or a separate god?

    Jesus is ONE with the Father in the same way He has asked US to be ONE with Him and ONE with eachother. ONE in purpose.
    Of course, Jesus is the Son of God, so they are probably ONE in many ways…..ALL except body. They have their OWN distinct bodies. The Bible teaches us that Christ is the EXPRESS image of His Father. It doesn’t get much clearer than that! It does NOT ever say that they are ONE “being”. That isn’t even an understandable principle.

    Jesus Christ is the SON OF GOD. There is only ONE Heavenly Father. He has ONE begotten SON. There is ONE Holy Spirit; God the Spirit. The 3 of them constitute the “Godhead”. They are all fully “God”, yet they are separate beings. This is consistent with the Bible in every way. Remember, the concept of the Trinity was “thunk up” by mortal men 325 years after Christ. IT WAS NOT BIBLICAL. Technically speaking, there is only ONE God….He is the original GOD, We call Him Heavenly Father. He has given the authority of “Godhood” to His Son and to the Holy Ghost.

    When you say the “only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh” what do you mean?

    I (I don’t claim to be the one and only authority on this) mean that Jesus is the only physical son of Heavenly Father. We believe that He is the LITERAL son, in every way, of God the Father. (just like I am the LITERAL offspring of my father)

    Are you saying that there are worlds everywhere and Jesus lived and died on each of them?

    No, Jesus Christ was born to ONE world and died once. His atoning sacrifice was infinite and covers ALL of Heavenly Father’s children. Worlds without end. I would imagine that those other worlds either received a visit from the Savior at some time, or have prophets to teach them about Him. The Savior visited His “sheep” on the American continent, so I am sure He could visit other “sheep” in the universe.

    Let me know what you think!

    ~Geoff

  33. osbornekristen said,

    July 20, 2009 at 8:13 am

    Geoff said,
    “We believe that He is the LITERAL son, in every way, of God the Father. (just like I am the LITERAL offspring of my father)”

    First, I think this is absolutely despicable! To think that God (Heavenly Father) would actually have sexual intercourse with a very young teenage virgin to make Jesus. This is horrible! They were not married and she was just a child who had never even kissed a man! This whole obsession sexual procreation in Mormonism is beyond me. The Father actually de-flowering Mary, men becomeing gods and having eternal sex with several wives to make lots of spirit babies……what is it with all the SEX?

    What about what the bible says happened?
    Matthew 1:20
    “ 20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”
    Matthew 1:18 “ 18Now 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.”

    So, you are telling me that the Father showed up at Mary’s house, undressed this innocent girl and had intercourse with her? Even, as I write this I feel dirty! How could the Holy Ghost have the fleshly “parts” to have intercourse?Even on my wedding night, with a LOVING husband, I was terrified! To even consider that the Father would have done this to her is crazy. And, is He not her Father too? I mean……..if he is Heavenly Father…….is he not the spirit father of her with a Heavenly mother? So, her own father had sex with her?

    And, if you think that you will be the father of a bunch of spirit babies in Heaven…..then won’t this make you a Heavenly Father too? How is this not placing yourself on the same level as God? Will your spirit offspring not call you Heavenly Father…….will you have some role in their eternal security? When you spirit offspring die will they live on your planet or with God?

    Does Jesus have a spirit babies too or is he chaste? Does he live with the Father…..as the Bible says……or does he rule his own planet too? Am I the spirit child of God, Jesus or some other Mormon who has become a god? Did I choose what earthly parents to come to or did God choose?

    Where does the Bible talk about all this? And, don’t give me
    Jeremiah 1:5 ….because this only says that God knew everything about us because he knows all……..including the future. Where is the Heavenly mother part…and the celestial procreation…….and the literal de-flowering of Mary?

  34. catzgalore said,

    July 20, 2009 at 8:17 am

    Shem, what are YOUR answers?

  35. shematwater said,

    July 20, 2009 at 8:56 am

    GEOFF

    Great job. Hope you don’t mind If I add a little.

    CATZ

    Geoff did a great job on the Oneness question, the many worlds question, and the “only begotten” qustion. As such I will only add a few remarks.

    As to creating it alone, Geoff is correct that it was done under the suppervision of the Father. However, I do believe he had help. We read in the Book of Abraham that “one like unto the Son of Man” came to the “Noble and Great” spirits that lived before the world was created (among whom was Abraham) and said “there is matterial here” so let us build a “world where on these may dwell.” Thus all the great prophets in all ages of the world had a part in the creation.
    The Father is called the creator because he designed it. The Son is called teh creator because he was the overseer or contractor. No one else receives this title because they were simple general laborers (just as construction workers do not get the created of building a structure, only the contractor and designer).

    Now, as to the oneness, I would point out that the concept of the trinity was believed by some in the second century, but it was not made standard until the Counsel of Nicea, in about 325.

    Regarding the “do you mean fully THE ONE GOD or a separate god?” I make an appeal to the dictionary for the definition of God.

    1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
    2. one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

    Now, let us consider these two basic definitions. The first (with a capital letter) is the One God, supreme over all things, the creator and ruler. The second (with a lowercase letter) is one of many dieties that have part in existance.
    Thus there is only one God, or supreme being who rules over all the others. But there are many gods who do exist.

    The one God, or supreme being is the Father. In the New Testiment, when speaking of the Father and son in the same sentence, Jesus is never called God. In Mark 1: 24 and Luke 4: 34 he is refered to as the Holy One of God, but not as God. In 1 Corinthians 8: 6 he is called Lord, and not God. In Ephesians 4: 5-6 he is again called Lord, as the Father is God, over the Lord. 1 Timothy 2: 5 calls him the mediator between God and men.

    Now, the Son is God, because he is the leader of this generation, and after the Judgement he will take his role as the Supreme created of the worlds on which our children will live. However, he is only called God when it is only him we are taking about. If we are talking of the Father and him, the Father is God and the Son is Lord.

    Now, Isaiah 43: 10 is the favorite evidence that there are no other gods. So, I would look closely at the text of verses 10-12. He calls himself the LORD in each verse. He calls himself God only in 10 and 12. In verse 11 he doesn’t call himself God, but the savior. So, in this particular reference, as far as I understand it, He is refering to the fact that there is only one savior, which is the LORD.

    So, in a sense Christ is the supreme being, or he will be, and so, on occasion, we honor him with this title. But, in the present condition of everything he is not the supreme being, and so he has the lower title of Lord but is still a God. (Yes I used the Capital G here, because all members of the Godhead are given this honor when they are refered to as God.)

  36. geoff456 said,

    July 20, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    KO,

    Got some hangups?? Sounds like it. Procreation IS NOT “dirty”.

    It is a privilege to be a father and a mother. Your take on it is indicative of some kind of hangup.

    Afterall, Adam and Eve were NAKED in the Garden of Eden. Was God repulsed? No, He created them that way. And, not to shock you or anything, but that is how YOU were sent here, too. Did it repulse you to see your own NAKED little children? No, I doubt it did because of their sweet innocence. Bodies were NOT intended to be “sexual”.

    Satan is the one who has taken something wonderful and made it carnal and devilish. Procreation, when used in its proper place, within the bonds of holy matrimony, is beautiful, even heavenly. Husbands and wives are fulfilling their purpose when creating children together.

    So, why is it so despicable to think that Jesus had a father and a mother?
    HOW do you think He was conceived??? magic??? And just HOW do you think YOU were conceived? Are YOUR parents descpicable??
    Heavenly Father created our bodies and their functions. I doubt if it is “descpicable” to Him.
    As for “spirit babies” (as you like to call them)….believe it or not, that is NOT something that LDS people spend a lot of time wondering, thinking or worrying about. Procreation in “heaven” will just be a continuation of my family here on earth. I love being a father! What’s not to love about having an eternal family? But, then again, I am talking to someone who doesn’t really care if she spends eternity with her children.(I believe you were the one that said it) So, perhaps you don’t understand how I feel!

    Bottom line: The Lord made our bodies. He gave us the equipment and told us to use it within the bounds He set. Why is this God-given ability so GROSS to you???

    ~Geoff

  37. latterdaysaintwoman said,

    July 20, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    Geoff,

    You wrote To KO:

    Got some hangups?? Sounds like it. Procreation IS NOT “dirty”. It is a privilege to be a father and a mother. Your take on it is indicative of some kind of hangup. After all, Adam and Eve were NAKED in the Garden of Eden. Was God repulsed? No, He created them that way. And, not to shock you or anything, but that is how YOU were sent here, too. Did it repulse you to see your own NAKED little children? No, I doubt it did because of their sweet innocence. Bodies were NOT intended to be “sexual”. Satan is the one who has taken something wonderful and made it carnal and devilish. Procreation, when used in its proper place, within the bonds of holy matrimony, is beautiful, even heavenly. Husbands and wives are fulfilling their purpose when creating children together. So, why is it so despicable to think that Jesus had a father and a mother? HOW do you think He was conceived??? magic??? And just HOW do you think YOU were conceived? Are YOUR parents descpicable?? Heavenly Father created our bodies and their functions. I doubt if it is “descpicable” to Him.

    I truly cannot believe that you wrote those words to KO.

    Why would it be despicable to think that Heavenly Father actually had sex with Mary and that is how Jesus was conceived???

    Because, if He had, then that meant that Mary was not a Virgin when Christ was born!!!! That meant that the God-breathed scripture which prophesied that Christ would be born of a Virgin was false!!!!

    Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

    That meant that either the Prophet Isaiah lied about his prophecy, or maybe the Jesus of Mormonism isn’t really Jesus. The Son of God was truly born of the Virgin Mary, as testified to in the book of Matthew:

    And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” (Matthew 1:21-25).

    If you notice in verse 25, Mary’s husband Joseph didn’t even have sexual intercourse with her until after Christ was born. Had he done so, Mary would not have been a Virgin when Jesus was born. The “Christ” would not have been born of a Virgin, as God promised in the book of Isaiah.

    Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are married is not despicable. The LDS teaching that Jesus was conceived by sexual intercourse between the Virgin Mary and God the Father is despicable.

    And guess what? Jesus was not conceived by magic! Can you possibly conceive of a God that has so much power that He created the entire universe simply by speaking? Have you ever heard of miracles? Can you not even conceive that the Holy Spirit has the power to do anything???!!!! It isn’t magic, it’s God’s power!!!

  38. osbornekristen said,

    July 20, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    Geoff dear…..

    I did not say that sex was dirty……I said that to say that God had sex with a 13 year-old, unmarried, innocent girl is dirty. And, you answered NONE of my questions that I asked………is that because it makes no sense to you either? Was it incest……..is he her Heavenly Father too?

    Adam and Eve did not have sex until they were forced out of the garden. Genesis 4
    “1And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. “

  39. osbornekristen said,

    July 20, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    Oh and Geoff you said:
    “But, then again, I am talking to someone who doesn’t really care if she spends eternity with her children.(I believe you were the one that said it)”

    Either you are in the early stages of dementia or you are lying and need to repent. I would NEVER say something like this! My FIRST priority and greatest goal as a parent is to teach my children about the Lord……so that one day we will all be in Heaven together with Him. My tiny toddlers have already memorized Ephesians 2:8 “God saved us by His grace…….” We talk about Heaven and that we will ALL be together with Jesus EVERY single night!

    My response to you centered around the fact that it doesn’t make sense to be sealed to one another for eternity if the seal can be broken simply by one of the family members not living up to all of the LDS church’s standards. You said yourself that strings would be cut if your children became wayward. You also said that there is plenty of time to “dump” your spouse for someone more righteous later.

    My own childrens’ salvation will seal them to me because in Christ we have the promise of spending eternity together with Him. I don’t have to do some ceremony to make it happen. Jesus made it happen 2000 years ago on a tree.

    Please think before you speak. You know in your heart that I would never want to be apart from my children. But, their salvation is a personal thing…..one that no ceremonies, temple work or baptsims on their behalf could ever change. My goal every day is to talk about Jesus when we are playing, walking, learning, eating, etc……..so that they will know and will someday trust in His grace to save them. I care more about their eternal security than anything else in the entire world. Actaully, I care about your eternal security too…..and am praying for you by name every night.

    Unlike you, Geoff, I am not happy to see ANYONE be apart from the Father.

  40. osbornekristen said,

    July 20, 2009 at 7:46 pm

    Also, Geoff…..

    “Did it repulse you to see your own NAKED little children? No, I doubt it did because of their sweet innocence.”

    This comment is just weird!

  41. latterdaysaintwoman said,

    July 20, 2009 at 8:24 pm

    1. Shem, You wrote:

    We read in the Book of Abraham that “one like unto the Son of Man” came to the “Noble and Great” spirits that lived before the world was created (among whom was Abraham) and said “there is matterial here” so let us build a “world where on these may dwell.” Thus all the great prophets in all ages of the world had a part in the creation. The Father is called the creator because he designed it. The Son is called teh creator because he was the overseer or contractor. No one else receives this title because they were simple general laborers (just as construction workers do not get the created of building a structure, only the contractor and designer).

    All things were created by Jesus. All, means all. God’s Word testifies:

    a. “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself” Isaiah 44:24.

    b. “Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Colossians 1:15-17

    c. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” John 1:1-3

    2. Shem, you write: “Now, let us consider these two basic definitions. The first (with a capital letter) is the One God, supreme over all things, the creator and ruler. The second (with a lowercase letter) is one of many dieties that have part in existance. Thus there is only one God, or supreme being who rules over all the others. But there are many gods who do exist.

    There is only ONE God. All who are worshipped as god, or claim to be god, are only false. God’s Word testifies:

    As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)

    3. Shem, you write: “The one God, or supreme being is the Father. In the New Testiment, when speaking of the Father and son in the same sentence, Jesus is never called God. Now, the Son is God, because he is the leader of this generation, and after the Judgement he will take his role as the Supreme created of the worlds on which our children will live. However, he is only called God when it is only him we are talking about. If we are talking of the Father and him, the Father is God and the Son is Lord.

    Here are a few passages that show you are wrong. God the Father is God and Jesus is God and these passages claim it. God’s Word testifies:

    a. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1-2 (Commentary in LDS KJV for John Chapter One: “Christ is the Word of God”).

    b. “And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.” Hebrews 1:6-10.

    c. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” Titus 2:11-14.

    And, why not the Old Testament?:

    d. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (LDS KJV Footnotes verse 14: “TG Jesus Christ, Judge“)

    e. “And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.” Hosea 1:6-7

    4. Shem, you write: “So, in a sense Christ is the supreme being, or he will be, and so, on occasion, we honor him with this title. But, in the present condition of everything he is not the supreme being, and so he has the lower title of Lord but is still a God. (Yes I used the Capital G here, because all members of the Godhead are given this honor when they are refered to as God.)

    Christ is equal in authority to God. He only lowered Himself to become a man to save us. God’s Word testifies:

    a. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9)

    b. “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:5-8)

  42. catzgalore said,

    July 20, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    Jesus says in John 4:24, “God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” He does not say God the Father has a body.

    Genesis says God (Elohim, plural) made the heavens and the earth. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Throughout the Old Testament, it is clear that there is ONE GOD… and in the New Testament Jesus is also presented as GOD. The only conclusion is that Jesus is also the SAME God, seen from a different perspective. He is beyond our comprehending.

    Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one!”

    This was a verse the people were to recite twice a day!

    There are many names of God. It does not mean each one is a different god; it is God from a different perspective.

    I may or may not agree with the doctrine of this man (teachings, concepts, interpretations, whatever you want to say!) but it is a good list of the names of God and their meanings:

    http://ldolphin.org/Names.html

    You said (Shem) Now, as to the oneness, I would point out that the concept of the trinity was believed by some in the second century, but it was not made standard until the Counsel of Nicea, in about 325.

    No Christian group taught anything but ONE GOD until 325– they would not have been called Christian, and accused of blasphemy. ONE God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I am sure that the definition as explained by the “Trinity” is simplified at best. It was an attempt to explain God. But He is much more than just the Trinity– He is the great I AM– ONE GOD.

    A few verses that tell us that the Jesus of the New Testament was the God of the Old Testament as he claimed:

    Revelation 1:7-8 Jesus was the Almighty.
    Genesis 17:1 And the Almighty was God.

    John 8:58 Jesus was the “I Am”
    Exodus 3:14 and the “I Am” was God

    Acts 3:14 Jesus was the “HOLY ONE”
    Isaiah 43:15 and the “HOLY ONE” was God

    John 8:24 Jesus is the “I Am He”
    Isaiah 43:10 and the “I Am He” was God

    Revelation 22:13 Jesus is the “First and the Last”
    Isaiah 44:6 and the “First and the Last” was God

    ONE GOD…. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  43. shematwater said,

    July 21, 2009 at 10:59 am

    OSBORNE

    Your comments about the relationship between Mary and the Father show a lack of thought and in some cases assumptions that have no real grounds.

    Example, how do you know how old Mary was? Where does it ever say her age in the Bible? It doesn’t, and so you don’t know.

    Now, as to all the questions you ask, of course we aren’t going to answer them. There is no point in answering them. If you do not believe in the basics why should we teach you the mysteries?
    However, since I am soft hearted, I will give a brief answer to one of them.
    No, I do not believe Christ has spirit children at this time, but I really don’t know and can’t say anything definitely.

    LATTERDAYSAINTWOMAN

    I have heard of miracles. However, I have yet to hear of one that cannot be explained through the basic laws of physics, which I believe God works through.
    Now, as to the prophecy of a virgin giving birth to a son, I would suggest that you read it again because it doesn’t say this. It says a virgin will conceive, and after the conception (which is natural) she will bare a son. There is no direct indication that she remained a virgin after the conception, only that she was one before the conception. Thus, even with the LDS doctrine, a virgin most definitely conceived, and after she conceived she did bare a son. There is no contradiction between our belief and the actual words of the prophecy, only with your interpretation of the prophecy.

    As to the references of the Holy Ghost, yes it was by his power, because she had to be transfigured in order to be in the presence of God, but that is the extent of his influence.

    Now, I really don’t want to get into a debate about the doctrine of the trinity verses the Godhead, or throw around verious verses and references in a foolish and vein attempt to prove either side right, but it cannot be done in this way.
    I have noticed a common tactic of the Non-LDS in most discussions. It goes generally like this: The LDS give a little information (like my definition of Christ) ask a simple question. The non-LDS then say, we will answer you if you explain these few points. So, being very abliging, we answer. At this point the Non-LDS ignore the question we asked and go into a tirade on how the explanations we gave are evil and cannot be found in the Bible. A very backhanded way to respond.

    So, since no one else has cared to actually answer the question I asked, I will do so myself.
    In the definition of Christ given by CATZ I count 9 distint characteristics.
    In my definition I give 14 distinct characteristics.
    In comparing the two, 7 characteristics given by Catz were also given by me. Thus I agree with 77.78% of what she said, and she agrees with 50% of what I said.
    Given that I gave more characteristics, and simply going from what I understand of Christianity, I would say that another 4 of those I listed would also be agreed to by them (Perfectly Just, Perfectly Merciful, having Perfect Love, and is the Savior-none of these were listed by Catz). That would make 11 of the 14 agreed to, making it a 78.57% similarity, thus making the estimated similarity 78.175%.

    Now, was that so hard. I do not think the similarity is enough to convince either side that the other is right, nor do I think it sufficient to claim both sides are right. However, I do think it is sufficient to bring people into a closer, and harmonized relationship. Yes we have differences, but why focus on them when we have so much more in common?

    This is the only point I ever really wanted to make on this particular thread. I find it rather amusing how “Christians” turn everything into a needless, and often senseless, debate when it is not necessary.

  44. geoff456 said,

    July 21, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    LDSW and KO,

    whoa ladies! what a lot to do about nothing! KO, YOU started the conversation about the act of “procreation” being “dirty”….you said the word “dirty” first, not me…you said you were terrified, not me…..you said it was despicable, not me.

    My main point is this: Heavenly Father ordained marriage. Procreation within marriage is not despicable. It is not dirty or disgusting. Mary was agreeable to this arrangement, as was Joseph. How do YOU know Mary was not “married” in some way to Heavenly Father? After all, this was planned from the foundation of the world! Don’t you think there was a plan in place?? I daresay there are some things you don’t know! (imagine that!)

    My post passed the “Vonnie-test”. She couldn’t find anything objectionable in it. I really don’t know why you both got so upset about it.

    Procreation is sacred and beautiful. God works in natural ways. Miracles follow the Laws of God. Procreation is very definitely a law of God. I sincerely don’t understand what upset you both so much!

    I don’t hold any illusions that I will convince either one of you that Jesus is the Literal Son of God! So, what do YOU think is meant by “only begotten”?? How did the DNA from God the Father get into Mary to form a baby?

    LDSW: the scripture you quoted doesn’t say Mary is a virgin at the birth of Jesus, just that a virgin conceived a child. “Virgin” refers to her status as an unmarried woman…..not as a condition during and after conception and birth.

    And where does it say that Mary was 13 and had never kissed a man? I am just wondering.

    KO, you apparently were not the person that said you were only concerned about being with Jesus not your family…sorry. I confuse you ladies sometimes…..but someone said it! And about the “temple ceremony” that YOU don’t need or want……you are fulfilling prophecy when you say that! Joseph Smith was told that the Christians DENY the power of the Gospel. Priesthood is the POWER of God. And you are indeed denying the need for it! And, please explain why it is ANY different if MY kid doesn’t live up to his covenants and is cut off, or if YOUR kid fails to be and stay “saved”?? Is it my imagination or is the result the same??

    So, unknot the knickers and breathe!! You ladies sure get worked up easy!

    ~Geoff

    Adam and Eve were “brother and sister” as were their children who married, and Noah’s grandchildren married each other, too. Perhaps “incest” isn’t so “despicable” to the Lord.

  45. catzgalore said,

    July 22, 2009 at 7:36 am

    different dictionary definition: TRANSLATION

    I’ve been reading at the lds.org site from the Joseph Smith “translation” of the Bible. Here is what is said about it, from the lds site:

    “Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded, the Joseph Smith Translation is unlike any other Bible translation in the world. In this sense, the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another.”

    It is NOT a translation at all! So why is it CALLED a translation? I know that Smith rearranged verse numbers etc and some passages are expanded so that the numbering system is not the same. So how can you compare verse by verse? You can’t. Not without digging.

    Joseph Smith version:
    Genesis 9
    4 And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar; and gave thanks unto the Lord, and rejoiced in his heart.
    5 And the Lord spake unto Noah, and he blessed him. And Noah smelled a sweet savor, and he said in his heart;
    6 I will call on the name of the Lord, that he will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and that he will not again smite any more every thing living, as he hath done, while the earth remaineth;

    King James translation (if Smith’s version was really a TRANSLATION then the numbering system would stay the same!)
    Genesis 9: 4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man.
    6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

    The verses given to compare is this: Genesis 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

    Read it to see the differences. MAJOR difference.

    JST: NOAH smelled a sweet savor and said he would ask the Lord to not curse the ground any more; It was NOAH’s idea.
    KJV: GOD smelled a sweet savor, and Himself said “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake” GOD’s idea!!

    Once more, something that belongs to God is given to man. It may seem like a little “so what” thing. It isn’t!

    see it for youself on the lds site

    http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/contents

  46. catzgalore said,

    July 22, 2009 at 8:50 am

    same vocabulary, different meaning: RAINBOW

    even the meaning of the rainbow is different!!
    KJV
    Genesis 8: 16And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

    (Note that the numbering system is different. This is the verse that the lds site said was the equivalent in the KJV)
    JS
    Genesis 9: 21 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant, which I made unto thy father Enoch;that, when men shall keep all my commandments, Zion should again come on the earth, the city of Enoch which I have caught up unto myself.
    22 And this is mine everlasting covenant, that when thy posterity shall embrace the truth, and look upward, then shall Zion look downward, and all the heavens shall shake with gladness, and the earth shall tremble with joy;
    23 And the general assembly of the church of the first-born shall come down out of heaven, and possess the earth, and shall have place until the end come. And this is mine everlasting covenant, which I made with thy father Enoch.

  47. shematwater said,

    July 22, 2009 at 10:07 am

    CATZ

    You did a good job at ignoring everything I said. How about we get back on topic and actually address what was originally talked about, intead diverging from the subject.

    If you want to compare definitions of the words translation, that would be one thing. However, that really doesn’t seem like your purpose. It really seems you want to go off into something else that you can harp on instead of actually considering the similarities between us. After all, if you can focus on the differences you can make the LDS church something strange and avoidable, but when you focus on the similarities it draws the whole think closer to you, which I think scares you a little.

  48. geoff456 said,

    July 22, 2009 at 10:57 am

    Catz,

    Not to make you feel dumb or anthing, but……….

    Why would Joseph need to bother with a new “translation” if it wasn’t signicantly different from the first? The Lord wouldn’t have bothered to have Joseph re-record it. So, OF COURSE it is different!!

    Do you think the numbering system was in place when the original authors recorded the stories and revelations? I hope not, cause that would mean you are ….well, you get the picture.

    Joseph (or whoever) called it a translation because it was revealed to him the same way the Book of Mormon plates were translated. Sometimes words are used in different ways to convey the same message. God commanded Joseph to do it, they are God’s words…I imagine He can do anything He wants with them.

    BTW, there are several translations of the Bible that AGREE with Joseph’s translation. Here is just one example:
    “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” Matt 6:13 (AS IF THE LORD WOULD BE THE ONE TO LEAD US TO TEMPTATION)
    JST: And suffer us not to be led into temptation, but deliver us from evil”
    (MEANING KEEP US SAFE FROM TEMPTATION)

    The Contemporary English Version of the Bible translates it to say: “keep us from being tempted”, and the Phillips Modern English Bible says “keep us clear of temptation”. Both of these agree with Joseph’s version.

    That is just one example, there are many. You can find these on line.

    AND, you TOTALLY lost me on the rainbow post? How is that so different. Isn’t a rainbow still a rainbow???
    ~Geoff

  49. osbornekristen said,

    July 22, 2009 at 11:47 am

    Geoff,

    Once again, you are missing the point and not answering my questions. If you knew me at all…….you would know that I do not think sex within the bonds of marriage is dirty or gross…….at all. In fact, my hubby would pee his pants laughing at this!!! Really, even my mom would laugh and say that you’ve got me all wrong!

    I said that I was terrified on my wedding night…….because I had built the thing up in my mind my whole life and was nervous……..I did not think it was DIRTY! I knew what was coming……Mary would have had little knowledge of sex without movies, sex ed., etc. It would have been a little scary! There isn’t a virgin out there who didn’t feel nervous or a little apprehensive on her wedding night……it is natural! But, this has little to do with the whole debate!

    You can make up whatever you want in your mind, but historically……in Biblical times girls were betrothed at about 13 years old…..when they began their menstrual cycles. That is FACT! Do some research yourself!!!

    For Mary to be betrothed (engaged) but not yet formally married, yet old enough to have and nurse the Messiah, she would have been 12-14. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible points out, “It appears that both boys and girls were married very young. Later [after the New Testament period] the rabbis fixed the minimum age for marriage at twelve for girls and thirteen for boys.”

    I simply said to believe that our Heavenly Father would physically have sexual intercourse with a very, very young unmarried girl……IS DIRTY! Do you know how they proved virginity in biblical times…….the bloody sheets! If there was a question about virginity, the girl’s parents would have to bring the bloody sheets to the city gates!

    According to Jewish custom…….marriages were pre-arranged between the groom and the bride’s father. Mary and Joseph were engaged……but they were NOT allowed to share affection…..yet. I’m pretty sure this includes any kind of “making-out/kissing”……..which would have been quite hard to do since the people lived in little one/two room homes, had no cars. Where would all this kissing have gone on…….especially since according to custom, once engaged, Mary would have been veiled in public.

    The Mosaic Law prescribed death to any betrothed man or woman who had sexual relations with someone other than their betrothed, thus treating it the same as adultery (Deut 22:22-23). 23”If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.”

    Why would God give this law if He, himself, were going to break it?

    This is ALL so CRAZY! Incest, God and Mary being married?!?!? Again, it gets worse and worse the more you explain your thoughts.

    You said, “ Joseph Smith was told that the Christians DENY the power of the Gospel. Priesthood is the POWER of God.”
    Yes, the only person to have the qualifications to hold the Priesthood IS God in the Flesh…..Jesus! I do not deny His Priesthood…….just yours. I am not worried in the least about what Smith said…..considering I think all of his prophesies are false and that he was a fraud.

    You asked…“And, please explain why it is ANY different if MY kid doesn’t live up to his covenants and is cut off, or if YOUR kid fails to be and stay “saved”?? Is it my imagination or is the result the same??

    Your church makes a big deal about being sealed together for eternity…….why is this necessary if the seal can be broken? Either it is for eternity or not!

    I do not believe that salvation can be lost. Waywardness does not cut off one from salvation. When my children are old enough to accept Christ, their salvation will be permanent because of their acceptance of Christ’s finished work on the cross……not circumstantial to them being good. Though they may stray, I believe that the Lord will always be their Father and await their return to Him. He will never “cut them loose.” Their salvation will be permanent……..not contingent upon their works…….though I pray that they will ALWAYS strive to serve the Lord out of their love for Him!

    This concept is impossible to discuss with you since you believe that ALL people are “saved” while I do not. Your family’s togetherness depends on each person’s level of reward…..which you hope will be the Celestial Kingdom. Since we believe two completely different things about salvation and Heaven…..this is impossible to debate.

  50. christiangirl19 said,

    July 22, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    Hey Shem,
    I noticed your comment to Catz about focusing on the similarities between our beliefs, rather than the differences. I think the problem with that is that the differences make a huge impact on our respective ideas about being saved and eternity.

    If Jesus is not fully God (as you posted in #35), that changes everything about him and his death on the cross- because only God could have paid for our sins (because only God could have lead a perfect life)! So while we all can agree that God is just, loving, perfect, etc., the differences are quite substantial. If it was a matter of “I think God has blue eyes” but you think he has brown- that is not really vital to eternity. However, something like Jesus being the One God really IS something to worry about! I don’t want to speak for Catz, but that is why I focus on the differences, rather than the similarities.

    Catz, I liked your post #42, with the comparisons between what God said and what Jesus said. Thanks.

    Geoff, I think I read in another discussion that you converted to the Mormon faith from something else. I am just curious what you converted from, and what caused you to- if you don’t mind sharing. Thanks!

  51. geoff456 said,

    July 22, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    KO,

    here is a great article that explains some of what we believe. It is by Boyd K Packer, an Apostle:

    I desire to share a few thoughts about a basic doctrine of the Church.

    What I say is based on these convictions:

    First: instruction vital to our salvation is not hidden in an obscure verse or phrase in the scriptures. To the contrary, essential truths are repeated over and over again.

    Second: every verse, whether oft-quoted or obscure, must be measured against other verses. There are complementary and tempering teachings in the scriptures which bring a balanced knowledge of truth.

    Next: there is a consistency in what the Lord says and what He does, that is evident in all creation. Nature can teach valuable lessons about spiritual and doctrinal matters. The Lord drew lessons from flowers and foxes, from seeds and salt, and sparrows and sunsets.

    Fourth: not all that God has said is in the Bible. Other scriptures—the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price—have equal validity, and they sustain one another.

    Fifth: while much must be taken on faith alone, there is individual revelation through which we may know the truth. “There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” (Job 32:8.) What may be obscure in the scriptures can be made plain through the gift of the Holy Ghost. We can have as full an understanding of spiritual things as we are willing to earn.

    And I add one more conviction: there is an adversary who has his own channels of spiritual communication. He confuses the careless and prompts those who serve him to devise deceptive, counterfeit doctrine, carefully contrived to appear genuine.

    I mention this because now, as always, there are self-appointed spokesmen who scoff at what we believe and misrepresent what we teach.

    Go to His Friends
    As a young seminary teacher, I learned a valuable lesson from our principal, Able S. Rich. He told me, “If you really want to know what a man is, and what he believes, do not go to his enemies. Go to the man himself or to his friends. He does not confide the thoughts of his heart to his enemies. His friends know him best; they know his strengths and his weaknesses. They will represent him fairly. His enemies will misrepresent him.”

    The doctrine I wish to discuss concerns the nature of man and of God.

    The Question
    There is a question in both the Old and the New Testaments: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” (Ps. 8:4; see also Heb. 2:5–7.)

    The answer is taught most simply in the song we sang together at the intermission of the meeting:

    I am a child of God,
    And He has sent me here,
    Has given me an earthly home
    With parents kind and dear. …

    I am a child of God,
    Rich blessings are in store;
    If I but learn to do his will
    I’ll live with him once more.
    (Sing with Me, B-76.)

    Children of God
    Those lyrics teach a basic doctrine of the Church. We are the children of God. That doctrine is not hidden away in an obscure verse. It is taught over and over again in scripture. These clear examples are from the Bible:

    “All of you are children of the most High.” (Ps. 82:6.)

    And: “We are the offspring of God.” (Acts 17:29.)

    Doctrinal truths are interrelated. There is an old saying that if you pick up one end of a stick, you pick up the other end as well.

    If you concede that we are His children, you must allow that God is our Father.

    God, Our Father
    That, too, is repeated over and over again in the scriptures. There are so many references that I could not even begin to read them to you.

    But I make this point: Christ did not speak only of the Father, or my Father; He spoke of your Father, and our Father. He even put them together in one sentence, saying, “Your Father, and your God, and my God.” (D&C 88:75; italics added.) God is addressed universally in the Christian world as Father. Were we not commanded to pray “Our Father which art in heaven”? (Matt. 6:9.)

    You may respond, “Every Christian knows that.” Perhaps every Christian does, but so-called Christians, with the help of clergymen, belittle in most unchristian ways our teaching that we are the literal sons and daughters of God.

    Other ideals flow from that great truth. Once you know that, you know that all men are brothers. That realization changes you. Thereafter you cannot willingly injure another. You could not transgress against them in any way.

    Self-respect
    That simple, profound doctrine is worth knowing for another reason as well. It brings a feeling of self-worth, dignity, self-respect. Then self-pity and depression fade away. We then can yield to the discipline of a loving Father and accept even the very hard lessons of life.

    Christ taught us to be “perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), to take on His attributes, to follow the pattern of our parentage.

    A little girl taught me a profound lesson on this subject. Surely you are not above learning from little children. Much of what I know that really matters I have learned from being a father.

    The Chicks
    Some years ago I returned home to find our little children were waiting in the driveway. They had discovered some newly hatched chicks under the manger in the barn. When they reached for them, a protective hen rebuffed them. So they came for reinforcements.

    I soon gathered a handful of little chicks for them to see and touch.

    As our little girl held one of them, I said in a teasing way, “That will make a nice watchdog when it grows up, won’t it?” She looked at me quizzically, as if I didn’t know much.

    So I changed my approach: “It won’t be a watchdog, will it?” She shook her head, “No, Daddy.” Then I added, “It will be a nice riding horse.”

    She wrinkled up her nose and gave me that “Oh, Dad!” look. For even a four-year-old knows that a chick will not be a dog, nor a horse, nor even a turkey. It will be a chicken. It will follow the pattern of its parentage. She knew that without having had a course in genetics, without a lesson or a lecture.

    After Their Own Kind
    No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce “after their own kind.” (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor “do men gather … figs of thistles.” (Matt. 7:16.)

    In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

    This is demonstrated in so many obvious ways, even an ordinary mind should understand it. Surely no one with reverence for God could believe that His children evolved from slime or from reptiles. (Although one can easily imagine that those who accept the theory of evolution don’t show much enthusiasm for genealogical research!) The theory of evolution, and it is a theory, will have an entirely different dimension when the workings of God in creation are fully revealed.

    Since every living thing follows the pattern of its parentage, are we to suppose that God had some other strange pattern in mind for His offspring? Surely we, His children, are not, in the language of science, a different species than He is?

    Like God
    What is in error, then, when we use the term Godhood to describe the ultimate destiny of mankind? We may now be young in our progression—juvenile, even infantile, compared with Him. Nevertheless, in the eternities to come, if we are worthy, we may be like unto Him, enter His presence, “see as [we] are seen, and know as [we] are known,” and receive a “fulness.” (D&C 76:94.)

    This doctrine is not at variance with the scriptures. Nevertheless, it is easy to understand why some Christians reject it, because it introduces the possibility that man may achieve Godhood.

    One God
    Their concern centers on certain verses of scripture, for there are many references (at least twenty in the Bible alone) which speak of one God. For example, Eph. 4:6: There is “one God and Father of all.”

    But if you hold strictly to a too rigid interpretation of those verses, you create serious theological problems for yourself.

    Plural Terms
    There are many other verses of scripture, at least an equal number in the Bible, that speak in plural terms of “lords” and “gods.” The first chapter of Genesis states:

    “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Gen. 1:26; italics added.)

    Such references are found from Genesis to Revelation. (See Rev. 1:6.)

    The strongest one was given by Christ Himself when He quoted that very clear verse from the Eighty-second Psalm:

    “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? [See Ps. 82:6.]

    “If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

    “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10:34–36; italics added.)

    The acceptance of this truth does not mean accepting the multiple gods of mythology nor the polytheism of the pagans, which was so roundly condemned by Isaiah and the other prophets.

    There is one God, the Father of all. This we accept as fundamental doctrine.

    There is only one Redeemer, Mediator, Savior. This we know.

    There is one Holy Ghost, a personage of spirit, who completes the Godhead.

    I have emphasized the word one, in each sentence, but I have used it three times. Three is plural.

    Paul used the plural many and the singular one in the same verse:

    “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

    “But to us there is but one God, the Father.” (1 Cor. 8:5–6.)

    Anyone who believes and teaches of God the Father, and accepts the divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, teaches a plurality of Gods.

    Relying on Reason
    When the early Apostles were gone, those who assumed the leadership of the Church forsook revelation and relied on reason. The idea of three separate Gods offended them, for it appeared to contravene those scriptures which refer to one God.

    To reconcile that problem, they took verses here and there and ignored all else that bears on the subject. They tried to stir the three ones together into some mysterious kind of a composite one. They came up with creeds which cannot be squared with the scriptures. And they were left with a philosophy which opposes all we know of creation, of the laws of nature. And that, interestingly enough, defies the very reason upon which they came to depend.

    The Apostle Paul understood this doctrine and wrote to the Philippians:

    “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

    “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Philip. 2:5–6.)

    Lorenzo Snow, a modern Apostle, wrote a poem to his ancient counterpart Paul, from which I quote only one verse:

    A Son of God, like God to be,
    Would not be robbing Deity,
    And he who has this hope within,
    Will purify himself from sin.
    (Improvement Era, June 1919, p. 661.)

    Purity
    What could inspire one to purity and worthiness more than to possess a spiritual confirmation that we are the children of God? What could inspire a more lofty regard for oneself, or engender more love for mankind?

    This thought does not fill me with arrogance. It fills me with overwhelming humility. Nor does it sponsor any inclination to worship oneself or any man.

    The doctrine we teach has no provision for lying or stealing, for pornography, immoralities, for child abuse, for abortion, or murder. We are bound by the laws of His church, as sons and daughters of God, to avoid all of these and every other unholy or impure practice.

    We did not invent this doctrine. Much of it was preserved in the Bible as it was revealed to prophets in ancient times. And as they foretold, further light and knowledge was revealed.

    With the restoration of the fulness of the gospel came the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Other revelations were given and continue to be given, and verses which seemed to oppose one another have harmony.

    The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. 1938, p. 345.)

    And that knowledge is given us.

    The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.

    There is only one Christ, one Redeemer. We accept the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. We accept the promise that we may become joint heirs with Him. Paul wrote to the Romans:

    “The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

    “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:16–17.)

    There are those who mock our beliefs in the most uncharitable ways. And we will bear what they do with long-suffering, for it does not change truth. And in their own way they move our work along a little faster. We will send our missionaries abroad to teach that we are the literal sons and daughters of God.

    We will strive with every exertion to teach what Christ taught, to live as He lived, to endure as He endured.

    We began with this question: “What is man that thou art mindful of him?” Christ, our Redeemer, our Elder Brother, asked, “What manner of men ought ye to be?” And then He answered, “Verily I say unto you, even as I am.” (3 Ne. 27:27.)

    I bear solemn witness that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh; that He is our Redeemer, our Savior; that God is our Father. This we know through the gift of the Holy Ghost. And I humbly but resolutely affirm that we will not, we cannot, stray from this doctrine. On this fundamental truth we will never yield! In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

    ……..THIS IS GEOFF AGAIN: what do think?

  52. geoff456 said,

    July 22, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    ko,

    what does “endure to the end” mean if not in the context of keeping one’s salvation?

    LDSW might disagree with you on this one.

    also, tell me what you think of Adam and Eve’s children marrying eachother. is that not “incest”?

    lastly, our body is perhaps God’s greatest creation……so why did you get so uptight about my references to nakedness? Obviously it doesn’t bother our creator.

    ~geoff

  53. catzgalore said,

    July 22, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    The rainbow was a covenant between God and mankind… Put the passages side by side and read them. He changed the covenant. And see what Smith added, his “prophecy” about the mormon church. I detailed that, you must not have read the whole post.

    Shem- you said…

    That would make 11 of the 14 agreed to, making it a 78.57% similarity, thus making the estimated similarity 78.175%.

    That is totally absolutely RIDICULOUS. The problem is in the 20%.

    Also, you said:
    “You did a good job at ignoring everything I said. How about we get back on topic and actually address what was originally talked about, intead diverging from the subject.”

    I didn’t ignore what you said. You wanted me to say, yes, we agree in a lot of ways and then you would get your “points”. I gave you a very good summary of my beliefs. You replied with the percentage nonsense above. It isn’t a “percentage” thing. You think that if the good outweighs the bad they you’re okay? It isn’t how it works.

    Geoff answered my question with
    “But was He ALONE??? I don’t know, and frankly, I don’t care.”

    And about the Virgin Birth? Geoff said–
    “Adam and Eve were “brother and sister” as were their children who married, and Noah’s grandchildren married each other, too. Perhaps “incest” isn’t so “despicable” to the Lord.”

    Did THAT paragraph pass the Vonnie test? I hope not.

    What I am scared of is where you will spend eternity.

    We get worked up because this is our precious LORD you are talking about.

    You want to get back to what we were talking about? I thought we were done with that. I was just commenting as I found things on the lds site. I will stop since it seems to be offensive to you.

  54. heathershairdos said,

    July 22, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    Wow. I have to say, I’m pretty shocked at how condescending, rude, and insulting the Mormons have been in this discussion. Aren’t you afraid these non-good works will send you to hell? I thought you were supposed to be nice, cheery, and sweet all the time?

    Guess that’s just a facade. Like your religion.

  55. osbornekristen said,

    July 22, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    In response to Geoff’s article,

    “Fourth: not all that God has said is in the Bible. Other scriptures—the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price—have equal validity, and they sustain one another.”

    ……..I believe that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price were written by man/men and not God. I believe Smith sought fame and power. I do not believe that he was inspired by God….but used the claim of being a prophet to gain recognition and power.

    “And I add one more conviction: there is an adversary who has his own channels of spiritual communication. He confuses the careless and prompts those who serve him to devise deceptive, counterfeit doctrine, carefully contrived to appear genuine. “

    ……..I TOTALLY agree with this! I am 100% confident that this is what the adversary (Satan) has done to Mormons. Sadly, this explains the LDS religion to a T. If you had really known Biblical scripture and grown up in the Word, you would not have been deceived by LDS teachings. 2 Timothy 4:3”For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

    “All of you are children of the most High.” (Ps. 82:6.)
    And: “We are the offspring of God.” (Acts 17:29”)

    ……..I believe that God is our Heavenly Father but not in a literal sense at all! He breathed life into us in our mother’s womb at conception…….He is the ultimate creator! He did not have SEX with a Heavenly mother to create our spirits….if this is so, where is it mentioned in the Bible? Also, you never answered my question about whether or not you will be your spirit off-springs’ Heavenly Father and how this would not be making yourself equal with God.

    …..I just don’t get whose spirits are created by THE Heavenly Father and whose are created by Mormons who have become gods…..are their off-spring on other planets? This HAS to be a thought you have pondered since “eternal-increase” is your ultimate goal/reward!

    …….I totally DISAGREE and will continue to DENY that God has intercourse to create life. Again, while sex is the way we humans create life…..it is not how he does it. This is not the way he created Adam and Eve in the garden.
    Genesis 2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

    …….God can do ANYTHING…..by any means that He chooses. He can speak and life appears…..he does not need to physically have SEX to create life. He gave us humans that gift because it is a wonderful blessing for a married couple to be able to create children out of this union of love. But, this is NOT how he did it in scripture! Where is his “wife” mentioned in all of this?

    ……..Christians deny that the Father deflowered Mary because it is not the truth of scripture…….Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost. God spoke life into Mary’s womb….there was no need for any physical contact!! Don’t you understand that the Father is ALL Powerful!

    …….This whole thing is so ridiculous. I do want to say that I am shocked that this literal act of SEX between God and Mary is actually something that LDS believe. I remember watching the “God Makers” in high school and crying my eyes out to my best friend who is a Mormon. She told me that this was not true and assured me that this was a false teaching. I am not saying that I agree with this movie……but it does show God showing up at Mary’s door to create Jesus. This is what you have said that you believe…..is it not? So, why do Mormons get so upset when anti-Mormon movies, etc. tell of this belief?
    The whole idea just takes away the whole “Miraculous Conception.” It is a false teaching with no biblical backup. It is just nuts.

    ……Matthew 24: 13 “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
    —This is speaking of the end times…….the Tribulation Period……which has not yet occurred……the Church (aka those who have accepted Christ) will not be here because Christ will have already taken them to be with him! Those that are left behind during the Rapture will have to endure to the end. These are folks who were not saved but accepted Christ after the fact. It will be a horrible time for the Christians converts on earth…..almost impossible for them! Those who become Christians during this time…..who can withstand and go against the Anti-Christ will be saved when Jesus returns to earth in the Second Coming. This is what this verse means. I know you don’t believe in the Rapture of the Church. But, this truth is just as solid for me as the Smith being from God is for you. I invite you to do some end times research……there are some great books that really help to explain biblical prophecy….David Jeremiah is my favorite minister on this subject…google him.

  56. geoff456 said,

    July 22, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    KO,

    wow, there is so much in that post that I don’t know where to begin. I think we are just going to have to wait it out until I am proved right in the afterlife!

    As for Adam and Eve being created differently than Jesus Christ….they are not EVER referred to as the “begotten” son and daughter of God…..so, you are correct, they were not created by natural means.

    I think it is funny that you tell me that God is ALL-powerful and then you LIMIT Him. No, He did not show up at Mary’s door. I doubt that she was “conscious” of the process. I understand the “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit to mean just that.

    Believe what you want….I don’t care. My mantra has been to let ME tell you what I believe and not let YOU tell me what I believe. So, your beliefs do not bother me in the least.

    But…..You get the doctrine all twisted and by the time you spit it back out it is convoluted and unrecognizable.

    and….You are right, I have never really understood the “rapture”. I have studied the “signs of the times” and find that very interesting.

    ChristianGirl19:

    as to your question about my conversion. I found the Christian Churches extremely “empty” when I was growing up. I attended Presbyterian, Nazarene, Congregational and Catholic to name a few. My best friend was a Mormon and his house was a great place to be. I felt the same way when I went to Church with him. There was something special about it. My Church had very few answers for me so after many years of wandering and wondering I went back to the LDS church.
    Here are some of the concepts that I questioned: 1. why all churches were different yet said they believed the same. They even trashed each other to some extent. (the Nazarenes “witnessed” about the other churches, tearing them down)
    2. why there were no prophets on the earth.
    3. it bothered me that the Catholic church had such a scandalous background yet proclaimed to the be true church.( i also had a catholic friend with a non-catholic father who, when he died, could not be buried on “sacred ground”….this bothered me (and him!)
    4. it bothered me that the protestant churches broke away from the Catholic church…so it left me wondering who was right.
    5. as a child I worried about children from other countries who didn’t have any religion.(there were lots of commercials on TV to support them through charities) my church taught that they were toast; that they could not be saved. that sure didn’t seem fair to me.
    6. I am very close to my dad and HE told me that we wouldn’t even know each other in heaven. (his parents were mennonite) Again, not fair!
    7. the LDS kids at school and my friend had more answers than the ordained pastor at my church!
    8. I studied the Book of Mormon, took the missionary lessons and with an OPEN MIND and HEART asked the Lord if it was true. I received an undeniable witness straight to my heart that it WAS true! I know God knows that I KNOW!! I cannot deny it.

    there you have it.

    ~geoff

  57. catzgalore said,

    July 23, 2009 at 8:15 am

    One of the things that I am learning in conversing with Mormons (more than on this blog, by the way) is that not all Mormons believe what the church teaches. A lot of the ones I have spoken to don’t even know what the church teaches, they just go along with it and don’t care, like Geoff seems to. They seem to have this loyalty to the church even when they see things that are not believable or true. Some, like Geoff, believe their HEART more than the Bible. Others KNOW it isn’t true, but say things like “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t” (from another blog) and stay anyway. I see that the church has a very strong power to hold people in its grasp. I was talking to a woman who was waiting in the hallway at my son’s wedding. We of course couldn’t be in there because we aren’t worthy Mormons. She was Mormon, but couldn’t be present in the room with the wedding because she wouldn’t give up her “bit of tea” (she was English). She told me she didn’t believe “all that hogwash” (her words) any more but was still in the church because she knew her family would disown her if they knew. That is pretty sad, isn’t it? Not all of my children are Christians, but I still love them and see them all the time. It breaks my heart to know they don’t know the Lord, but if I had to shun them… well I don’t like to think about it.

    Geoff, you said…
    “I think it is funny that you tell me that God is ALL-powerful and then you LIMIT Him. No, He did not show up at Mary’s door. I doubt that she was “conscious” of the process. I understand the “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit to mean just that. ”

    Read some of the teachings of your church….I’m not trying to tell you what you believe. I can see that you don’t believe a lot of what the mormon church teaches (or has taught). I am showing you what your church has taught in the past. I’m not making it up! Brigham Young was a major prophet of your church, he even has a university named after him! Your belief, above, contradicts what Brigham Young said (See below; find it out for yourself)! Doesn’t that bother you? Were his words the truth of a prophet? Were they not additional revelation? Or were they not truth, and Brigham Young a false prophet? Take a deep look from your own church publications and see what were once major teachings of the church. If they have been abandoned, find out why! Or are you not supposed to read Journal of Discourses any more? It was once highly regarded by your church.

    Quotes from the Journal of Discourses:

    He [God] created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:122).

    The birth of the Saviour 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 (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:115).

    When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost…. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea”if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, and be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1:50-51)

    Maybe they are not “current” teachings (maybe the doctrines have changed!!) but there they are. Find out for yourself that a lot of the “prophets” came up with very odd teachings that the Mormon church is now trying to supress. Why? Were they not prophets? Find out about the Journal of Discourses, a major publication of the church that is no longer authorized but only “interesting” even though it contains the words of the prophets! Find out why the church is changing its teachings. Find out why they can claim that their doctrines have not changed when they no longer teach the words of the prophets. It’s because the meaning of the word “doctrine” is not the same as the rest of the English speaking world! Either your doctrines (teachings) have changed or the definition of the word “doctrine” has changed. You can’t have both. The “men on the moon” and the seer hat are inconsequential; but the conception and birth of Jesus are MAJOR issues. If you are going to follow the church, shouldn’t you embrace what it teaches?

    Just so you know, I too think that most “churches” are empty shells. I think Satan has been busy there too. It makes me sad that the majority of people on this earth are missing the point! I read a book, Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna that was much to think about. Although I don’t agree with some of what was said, they had a lot to say about the current practices of the so called Christian churches. Their main point is the same as mine: follow JESUS not anything MAN has created. Jesus died so we could have direct access to God. Settle for nothing less.

    Forgive me if it all sounds harsh. I pray daily for you, Vonnie, Shem and your families. I pray for your eyes and ears to be opened and that you would see your church for what it is and was.

    It isn’t about the church, it’s about Jesus. It’s about following the Lord and not a man made institution. I know that you believe that the LDS Church is God’s church. You probably always will. I will leave you with one last quote.

    “There is perhaps nothing worse than reaching the top of the ladder and discovering that you are on the wrong wall.” – Joseph Campbell

  58. geoff456 said,

    July 23, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    Catz,

    What was there in Brigham Young’s quote that bothered you? And what part about it was different from what I said?

    I am totally comfortable with everything Brigham said. He is one of my favorites because he doesn’t beat around the bush. God’s laws are natural laws. Do you think that we think Mary was “seduced”? No, that is not what we think at all. Why is procreation such a nasty thought for you gals?

    Procreation is sacred. period.

    and would you PLEASE get off the “change in doctrine” bandwagon? Shem and I have both told you (and we are living, breathing mormons) that there is NO change in doctrine!! Why can’t you believe us?
    And any person that would throw away her faith because of a “bit of tea” is not worth talking to! sheesh!! anti-mormons are a dime a dozen!

    and ..name ONE teaching the church is trying to “supress”. you throw accusations out, but do not back them up. that is the easy way out!

    Perhaps one thing I should have spelled out for you gals is this:
    I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it is the ONLY church I ever went to that taught who I am in relation to Jesus Christ. I am not just some minion to go ga-ga at him, but I am loved by Him. He cares what becomes of me! He cares what kind of man I become. He has paved the way for me to become perfect even as He is. I can be a joint heir with Him to all the Father has! His purpose was MY happiness, not His own. He set the example for me to follow. My life is richer because I am a member of His church, with His priesthood to bless my family and His Spirit to guide me. I am an active participant in His Gospel…the good news that 50,000 missionaries are taking to people all over the globe! He is in the Work!
    This is His Church. He is fully Godas well as the Son of God! A distinct person with a body in the express image of His Father. He is NOT one corner of a “triangle”, a fluffy cloud or a mirage. He is a living, breathing Exalted Man! And obviously His father is a Man also, since the Savior is called “the Son of Man”. (not the son of woman, which even you would agree with)
    well, this turned into a little testimony meeting!

    have a nice day, ladies….and try not to stress too much about me and Shem. We are happy and NOT worried about climbing the ladder on the wrong wall!! BELIEVE me!! (but thanks for the prayers!)

    ~Geoff

  59. catzgalore said,

    July 23, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    Geoff, you said awhile ago…

    don’t be a “fraidy cat”! bet you couldn’t sit through ONE missionary lesson!!

    I sat through several missionary lessons a number of years ago. It didn’t make any more sense then than it does now. Maybe less- they were still pushing some pretty unbelievable things. The hat was still a big deal then.

  60. geoff456 said,

    July 23, 2009 at 9:48 pm

    Catz,

    sorry, don’t believe a word of it!! Missionaries were “pushing” the “hat” ???
    yeah, right.
    nice try, though.

    ~geoff

  61. rblandjr said,

    July 23, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    Hello,
    I have just registered today and was reading the comments. I have several questions but lets limit it to a few. When one uses the phrase, “anti-Mormon” does that mean they are against Mormons? If I am anti-Muslims I am against Muslims. If I am anti-Christian I am against Christians. Now to the subject being discussed. Whether LDS doctrine has changed since its inception. First off when did the LDS curch come into existence on earth? Was it following the resurrection of Christ when he sent out his children with the great commision. Or was it founded in the 1830’s when JS received the vision that told him not to join any church for they were all wrong. Is that the begining of the LDS church.
    It seems to me from reading in the BOM and then comparing it with the booklet, True to the Faith that I can see many doctrines that were not taught in the BOM. Such as, Plurality of the Gods,Aaronic and Mechizedek Priesthoods, God as an exalted man, three kingdoms of heaven. celestial marriage, temple ceremonies and oaths, baptism for the dead word of wisdom, pre-existence,eternal progression. In fact the BOM teaches there is one God, Mosiah 15:5; Alma 11: 28,29; 2 Nephi 31:21. It also teaches that Go is unchanging- Mormon 9:9,19; Moroni 8:18 Alma 41:8; 3 Nephi 24;6. It is clear throughout the history of the LDS church from its inception that its doctrines have evolved with continuing revelation from the prophet. I am not attacking by stating these facts. I am answering in love, to that first vsion of Joseph Smiths, that all churches were wrong, that they preached a false gospel and had completely apostisized.My goal is not to attack but speak the truth in love. What is also amazing is that if these Lds doctrines were at the time of Christ then would we not have some kind of evidence from the many thousands of manuscripts that date back to the Apostolic Fathers and if you refer to OT manuscripts then you would have to go back to the time before Christs incarnation.

    Thanks for letting me join the discussion.
    Richard

  62. catzgalore said,

    July 24, 2009 at 12:55 am

    YOU said:
    “I understand the “overshadowed” by the Holy Spirit to mean just that. ”

    YOUNG said
    “Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.” and “The birth of the Saviour 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”

    The truth is this:BRIGHAM YOUNG BELIEVED THAT GOD THE FATHER CAME TO EARTH IN HIS BODY AND HAD PHYSICAL SEX WITH MARY. Do you believe that? You say you don’t.

    So is what YOU believe correct, or is Brigham Young correct? It can’t be both.

    you said: “and would you PLEASE get off the “change in doctrine” bandwagon? Shem and I have both told you (and we are living, breathing mormons) that there is NO change in doctrine!! Why can’t you believe us?”

    I can’t believe you because the evidence is so strong that it has changed. Even you (a living, breathing, mormon) believe differently than your prophet Brigham Young! He said. “remember from this time forth, and for ever” Does the church as a whole believe differently, or is it just you that missed that teaching along the line?

    Satan is trying to quietly morph the church into something that will be accepted by more people. Joseph started out HATING the “Christian” churches and saying they were all in apostacy. Now, at least outwardly, the mormon church has changed its tune– it LOOKS like it is now trying to fit into mainstream Christianity– but it still isn’t part of the crowd, it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing– it is pretense! It doesn’t REALLY want to fit, it just wants others to think that way so it will be somehow more acceptable. But it is just a mirage.

    Whereas it is true that there IS no true hope for any of us without the Lord, I have to conclude that Satan has such thick blinders on you that you cannot see the plainest things.

  63. catzgalore said,

    July 24, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    sorry, don’t believe a word of it!! Missionaries were “pushing” the “hat” ???
    yeah, right.
    nice try, though.

    If only I had that tract that was given to me when I was in high school. It even had a picture of Smith looking into the hat.

    And a friend of mine who is in her nineties remembers clearly that they told her (when she met with some missionaries) that men lived on the moon. This was in the 40s and 50s.

  64. shematwater said,

    July 24, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    Just a few comments.

    First, nothing Geoff said is any different than what Brigham Young said. While I do disagree with what he said, I understand it and will admit that there is no actual doctrine clarifying the matter.
    Here is what was said: Christ’s birth was natural – Geoff agreed. Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost – Geoff agreed. Did Brigham Young say anything else in the quotes you give? No. This is what he said, and this is all. You have concluded he said other things, but he didn’t.

    Me and Geoff disagree only on the role the Holy Ghost played, and nothing else, and you have not yet given a quote that addresses this, so I will not comment.

    One last thing, when you say that “God did not come to her door” you make it sound as though we taught that God just showed up one day and she had to submit. This is not true in the slightest degree. The Angel appeared to her first, told her what she had been called to do, and she was given a choice of whether or not to accept it. She was also given plenty of time before hand to consider the matter.

    Now as to God being all powerful, I believe this whole heartedly. However, this does not mean he can do anything. God is all powerful, meaning he has all power that any being could possibly have. All power that is available, he has it. However, there is power that no being has, nor can have.
    Just for a little light-hearted example: God cannot make a rock so big that he could not move it.
    The idea that he can do anything is in itself contradictory, as is shown by this example. Thus, it is no leap of logic, nor is it detracting from his glory and honor, to say that he works within the laws of nature (though an exalted nature) and as such there are somethings that he is unable to do.

    As to what CATZ said, it was not a response to what I had asked, but it was not offensive, just a little annoying. I would be happy to answer your questions, after you answer mine.
    As to the importance in the difference, I never denied this. I never said the similarities were enough for either side to accept the other as true. My only point was that when we look at the similarities it is easier to refrain from contentions. When we consider how similar our beliefs are, it is easy to discuss the differences in a more civilized manner. This is all I was saying.

    In reply to RBLANDJR
    Yes, during the time of Joseph Smith doctrine did “evolve” as you put it. The reason for this is perfectly logical and reasonable, and in no way detracts from him as a prophet. That reason is simply that Joseph had to learn in stages like the rest of us. He was not given the entire gospel and all the truths it contains at one time. He was given a little at a time. When he had done all he coud with tht he was given a little more. At times he had to use his own logic to reach some conclusions, and later he would teach differently after the Lord corrected him. There is nothing wrong in this.
    As to those doctrine not in the Book of Mormon, when did anyone say they were. No book can contain all the doctrines of heaven, so again, there is really no problem.
    As to the evidence, I really don’t know a whole lot about it. However, it is not sufficient to prove they did not happen, or were not taught. The absence of supporting evidence is not in itself proof against something.

    HEATHERSHAIRDOS

    We have been less condesending than the Christians have been. We have been defending and explaining what we believe, while they have been doing their very best to make everything sound as bad as possible, in some casing completing ignoring what we say, and then telling us what we believe and what we meant.
    Sorry if we sound a little rude, but the endless assault does get tiring.

  65. catzgalore said,

    July 24, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    You are trying to point out the similarities and ignore the differences. Even when I point out the difference, such as Geoff saying that Mary was pregnant by the Holy Ghost and the church doctrine says God the father came to earth and had physical sex with Mary. Yet you say that they are saying the same thing! You wonder why we say you make no sense.

  66. geoff456 said,

    July 25, 2009 at 9:31 am

    Catz,

    I was going to try to explain this to you, but it has become a little bit of a joke to try to explain anything to you two gals!! I had it all typed out and then erased it.

    You will just have to wait until you get to the telestial kingdom to hear about it!! 😉 (that was a little LDS humor there, shem will get it)

    Suffice it to say that I agree with Brigham Young completely and his words do NOT differ from my stated belief in the least. You make it sound like two things can’t happen at once! sheesh!! and double sheesh!!

    We have beat this dead ol’ horse enough! YOU GALS JUST DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHIRST!!

    I am going to take a little break from this blog. too much contention with you all!

    ~geoff

  67. shematwater said,

    July 25, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    CATZ

    Never did Geoff say Mary was pregnant by the Holy Ghost. He said that the Holy Ghost put her to sleep, in a manner of speaking, so that the acwardness and nerveousness would not be an issue. He never said it was the Holy Ghost that caused her to conceive, and thus there is no difference in what was said.

    Now, as to the differences, I thought this thread would have been a great opportunity to do what I said, which is consider the similarities. I never asked that you dismiss the differences, only that you pause from your continual rants about them, and in that moment consider what we have in common. Would it be so evil to have one thread where we actual compare the similarities instead of the differences?

    From all that you have said I think you would consider this a great evil. It seems that you cannot consider the dimilarities for fear of what it might imply. You have to speak only of the differences, because, as I said before, that keeps the LDS faith at a distance, as a strange thing that is to be shunned. You fear the similarities because they draw the LDS church closer and force you so see what we actual teach, and force you to consider why, and by what logic, we believe as we do. The very idea terrifies you.

  68. catzgalore said,

    July 25, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    The problem with focusing on the similarities is it doesn’t make any difference how similar we are if the differences are profound.

    I tried to simply tell what I believe about Jesus. You replied that we were similar 78.175% of the time. I know you are trying to make me see that it isn’t as different as I think. I know you are sincerely trying to focus on the similarities. But if I only focus on the similarities, I have to leave out big hunks of what I believe!

    I believe in One God, you believe in a myriad of gods. I believe that Jesus death saved me, you believe he made it POSSIBLE to be saved, as long as we do our part. You believe that God the Father in bodily form had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus, I believe that the conception was supernatural. You are striving to get to the Celestial Kingdom so that you can be with your family forever. I am trusting Christ that I will be in Heaven WITH HIM when I die. You are trusting in yourself and your own efforts to gain entrance to the highest heaven. I believe that it is only through Jesus that I have hope of Heaven.

    Need I go on?

    Why would I be terrified? I would be terrified to find out that I had followed a false prophet/prophets and not the Lord Himself.

  69. osbornekristen said,

    July 25, 2009 at 9:21 pm

    Geoff said, there is “too much contention with you all!”

    Interesting……..this is what Mormon missionaries say when you began to ask questions that they cannot or do not want to answer. Well, at least the church has covered its bases on what kind of response to give when Biblical truths and Mormon doctrine conflict.

    Also, condeming us to the telestial kingdom (which is seperating us from eternity with the Father) IIS an ATTACK on our eternal security. I, for one, have never told you where you will go when you leave this earth…….that is not for me to judge…..only God knows your heart. I don’t think it is funny. We are praying for you and will continue to…..so please end the threats about us having to answer to Smith and condeming us to an eternity apart from Christ……..it isn’t very “faith promoting” or helping you “climb any more rungs” toward your “exaltation.”

  70. catzgalore said,

    July 25, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    Shem, you said…

    “He said that the Holy Ghost put her to sleep, in a manner of speaking, so that the acwardness and nerveousness would not be an issue”

    So Mary was SEDATED so the heavenly father could physically have his way with her? Sounds like RAPE!! So if they had sex, Mary had to be God’s wife, otherwise Mary would be an adultress and could be stoned… their marriage wasn’t for time and eternity, just for that moment because then after Jesus was born, she and JOSEPH got married, except that she was ALREADY MARRIED!! Or did God die, or did she divorce God?
    What a tangled web….

  71. geoff456 said,

    July 26, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    “oh what a tangled web we weave when we SENSATIONALIZE AND DECEIVE.”

    I think that is how the saying goes! 🙂

    Wow, you gals are something else! I get a kick out of the way you two can turn things around and make it sound like Shem and I are the ones who are contentious and “threatening”. Excuse me, but aren’t the Christians the ones who say the “non-believers” will burn in hell? Aren’t you the ones who have painted us as those afore mentioned “non-believers”?

    I can only imagine what it would be like to have one of my children marry a non-LDS person and put up with the kind of stuff your in-laws do. KO, did you ever stop to think that your mother-in-law, the woman who lovingly raised your husband, is intimidated by you? Why is it that she won’t answer you? Is intimidation a successful form of missionary work? ….uh, don’t think so.
    Shem and I have tried, in good faith, to explain what we believe. I do not care if you convert to my way of thinking! I would just like for once for you 2 to THINK about the impression YOU are leaving with us!
    I, for one, am tired of the accusations and wild conclusions you two come up with. You can’t name ONE “attack”, and you certainly are NOT innocent on the sarcasm scale!

    So, WHY can’t we exchange views and not be critical of each others beliefs?
    please refrain from characterizing OUR beliefs and DEMONIZING our beloved leaders.

    thanks,
    Geoff

  72. catzgalore said,

    July 26, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    For crying out loud.

    He said that the Holy Ghost put her to sleep, in a manner of speaking, so that the acwardness and nerveousness would not be an issue

    If someone put YOU to sleep and then someone else had sex with you, when you were unaware, what would YOU call it?

  73. shematwater said,

    July 27, 2009 at 11:47 am

    CATZ

    First, I never said I agreed with Geoff on this point. In fact I said I disagreed. However, I also said that the church in no way clarifies the event for us, so we are left to sort it out ourselves, with the help of the spirit.

    As to your accusation of Rape, that would only be true if Mary was not aware of the arrangement and had not concented to it. From everything me and Geoff have said it should be clear to you that we do not believe this. Mary was fully aware of the situation. She was given the opportunity to decline the honor, but she accepted. I do not know exactly how it all worked out, but she knew everything that was going to happen, and she concented to all of it.

    As to adultery, again I do not understand the relationship. However, I do know that if God commands you cannot sin in obeying, regardless of what that command tells you to do. It is possible that Mary remained married to both the Father and Joseph, which is fine by me. But I find that it really doesn’t matter to me how it all worked out. After all, God was incharge of that, just like he is incharge of everything else, and all his works are good. This is really all I need to know.

    As to the similarities, I never said we should focus on them to the exclusion of differences. I merely suggested that for a small percentage of the time that we spend discussing thing we could compare similarities instead of differences. Thus, for every thirty threads we spend in debate over what the LDS church teaches and how evil and deceitful we are, we could spend one thread looking at what we have in common. Is this so wrong, or so difficult?
    Quite frankly, I don’t think it is wrong or difficult, and I am, even eager, to do so. Let us not forget our differences, but let us put them aside for a brief moment.

  74. catzgalore said,

    July 27, 2009 at 10:40 pm

    Shem, I am not saying YOU are evil and deceitful. I believe you are a very sincere Mormon. I don’t think that you personally are out to deceive. You are sincerely defending what you perceive as an attack on your faith.

    Praying for you,
    Catz

  75. shematwater said,

    July 28, 2009 at 8:14 am

    CATZ

    Never said you spoke of me personally, nor did I say it was you who made the accusation. I was speaking in a collective sense. Thus, as a whole, Christians on this site accuse LDS of being evil and deceitful. These are all broad accusations, which allows for the denial that you are including individuals, but they are still there.

    Personally, most of what you say is not an attack on the Faith, just misguided prejudice.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s