Mormons Rock

October 18, 2007

I BELIEVE IN CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know there are many out there who think Mormons don’t believe in Christ.  To you I say, I BELIEVE IN CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!  He saved me from my sins.  He freed me.  I love Him with all my heart and with all my soul!  My favorite hymn happens to be titled, I Believe in Christ!  I want to post the words to this song here.  When I hear it sung My soul fills with joy, when I read the words, my eyes fill with tears.  I love Him, He is My Savior, My friend.  I will live for Him and I would die for Him!

 134
I Believe in Christ

31243, Hymns, I Believe in Christ, no. 134

1. I believe in Christ; he is my King!
With all my heart to him I’ll sing;
I’ll raise my voice in praise and joy,
In grand amens my tongue employ.
I believe in Christ; he is God’s Son.
On earth to dwell his soul did come.
He healed the sick; the dead he raised.
Good works were his; his name be praised.

2. I believe in Christ; oh blessed name!
As Mary’s Son he came to reign
’Mid mortal men, his earthly kin,
To save them from the woes of sin.
I believe in Christ, who marked the path,
Who did gain all his Father hath,
Who said to men: “Come, follow me,
That ye, my friends, with God may be.”

3. I believe in Christ—my Lord, my God!
My feet he plants on gospel sod.
I’ll worship him with all my might;
He is the source of truth and light.
I believe in Christ; he ransoms me.
From Satan’s grasp he sets me free,
And I shall live with joy and love
In his eternal courts above.

4. I believe in Christ; he stands supreme!
From him I’ll gain my fondest dream;
And while I strive through grief and pain,
His voice is heard: “Ye shall obtain.”
I believe in Christ; so come what may,
With him I’ll stand in that great day
When on this earth he comes again
To rule among the sons of men.

Text: Bruce R. McConkie, 1915–1985. © 1972 IRI

Music: John Longhurst, b. 1940. © 1985 IRI

2 Nephi 25:23, 26, 29

Mormon 7:5–7

Advertisements

163 Comments »

  1. Steffie ,

    I love this song 🙂

    My other favourites are
    For The Beauty Of The Earth
    How beautiful They Temples Lord (even though I don’t believe they are needed though )
    Our Saviours Love

    are you happy now ?:)

    Comment by Elder Joseph — October 18, 2007 @ 5:01 pm |Reply

  2. YES! Thanks 🙂

    did you listen to the other song? ‘Love is spoken here’?

    It’s a beautiful song and the girls who sing it are amazing!

    Comment by steffielynn — October 18, 2007 @ 7:52 pm |Reply

  3. My overwhelming favorite is “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief”.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 18, 2007 @ 10:12 pm |Reply

  4. I’ve never heard of that song, so I just looked it up. Wow, it’s beautiful, and very touching. Here is the link I went to to find it, http://youtube.com/watch?v=g0k5ZMmW6g8&mode=related&search=

    Comment by steffielynn — October 18, 2007 @ 10:26 pm |Reply

  5. Again, awesome. You truly have a gift for proclaiming the truth in such a way that can stir souls regardless of a person’s religious affiliation.

    Comment by marlajayne — October 19, 2007 @ 11:25 am |Reply

  6. What do you believe ABOUT Christ? This is where Evangelicals take issue with Mormons, Steffielynn. What is His nature? Who is He? Where did He come from? What is His relationship with God and the Holy Spirit? You have to answer these questions to determine what “Christ” you believe in, the one of the Bible, or the one of Mormonism. Yes, I believe they’re different.

    Comment by Brad — October 19, 2007 @ 12:47 pm |Reply

  7. I believe that Christ was born of the virgin Mary, He is the Only Begotten Son of the Father. I believe He lived on this earth and taught His people (and us) how to live. He healed the sick and raised the dead. He suffered for us, for me. He died on the cross so that I may live. He rose again, and he sits on the right hand of God the Father. He is Gods Literal Son.

    I know that He lived for me, I know that He died for me. He is my Lord my God my Savior.

    Steff

    Comment by steffielynn — October 19, 2007 @ 1:31 pm |Reply

  8. steffie ,

    What do you mean or believe about the Virgin Mary ?

    Do you believe in The Virgin Birth ie that after Mary gave birth to Jesus she was still a virgin and so remained pure and chaste for her husband Joseph ?

    Or do you believe she was a Virgin when Adam our God took on a body and conceived physically with her as taught by Brigham Young ?

    He denied she was begotten of the Holy Ghost .

    I agree with everything else you say though .I just want to know who to trust
    Steffielynn or The Prophet Brigham Young on the Virgin Birth 🙂

    Comment by Elder Joseph — October 19, 2007 @ 3:08 pm |Reply

  9. Steffielynn,

    1) Is Jesus God?

    2) Is Jesus, in His Divinity, a created being?

    3) Is God a created being?

    Comment by Brad — October 19, 2007 @ 8:20 pm |Reply

  10. Life is so short and our time on earth is a gift form our Father – using it wisely is the greatest lesson that we can ever learn. Finding those things that are really important – faith, family and forever

    Comment by Happyman — October 23, 2007 @ 10:22 am |Reply

  11. I totally agree!!!!!!!! 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — October 23, 2007 @ 10:56 am |Reply

  12. Answers, Steffielynn, answers. They will show that your beliefs about God are NOT Bible-based.

    And all the nice, touchy-feely words from Happyman aside, the most important thing is making sure that you have a right relationship with the only God there is, who unfortunately is not the god of Mormonism.

    Comment by Brad — October 23, 2007 @ 5:10 pm |Reply

  13. Brad

    I think I explained all I can and all I know about Him already. The rest will come when I meet Him!

    I’m not exactly sure who it is you think you are! Are YOU the judge? Do you get to determine who does and does not know Christ?

    Let’s leave that up to Him!

    Thanks!!!!

    Steff

    Comment by steffielynn — October 23, 2007 @ 6:04 pm |Reply

  14. Steffielynn,

    Christ doesn’t have a changing nature, neither does God. So if people believe different things about Christ, that impact His very nature, then they by default are believing in a different Christ. That’s why I asked the specific 3 questions I did, which you have, as yet, not answered.

    Just looking for specific answers from you, that’s all.

    Comment by Brad — October 23, 2007 @ 8:36 pm |Reply

  15. Believe me – it’s the touchy-feely things that get you through life )(it’s really the Holy Ghost that touches us and confirm to us it’s also the Love of God– are we to believe in what men teach or what God puts in our hearts?

    I love an expression that Mother Theresa used – if your going to be a Hindu, be the best Hindu that you can, if your going to be a Buddhist, be the best that you can, if your going to be a Christian be the best you can – I’ve paraphrased her but I think you get the point –

    God will look into our hearts – and that is what He will Judge us on – he sees our insides – and if there is love in there – that is what he commanded us – To love the Lord God with all your heart, mind, and strength and the second is like upon it -to love your neighbor as yourself.

    I have to stay with the guidance of the Spirit here – Believe me – one can disprove almost anything – someone is always going to have a answer – So we all must have a converted heart – and that comes from faith –

    Besides – the doctrine of the Trinity didn’t come until several hundreds years after Christ ascended – there were many thoughts about the divinity of Christ –

    We Mormons believe in the Christ of the Bible – but we do not presuppose the early Christian councils to interpret them.

    If you ever want to read an excellent book that will answer all your questions about Mormons – read “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” by LeGrand Richards – but please read by itself – study the scripture references as given – I’m sure that you can google the net and find all sorts of things proving it wrong –
    Peace, Grace and Love!

    Comment by happyman4 — October 24, 2007 @ 12:33 am |Reply

  16. Brad,

    You act like you are the last authority on Jesus, when in fact you get all your information from a flawed book that was assembled with books missing and others out of order, and most with various mistranslations.

    It amazes me that anyone would think that a loving father would condemn some of his children to hell just because they believed something different from his other children, even when all are sincere and live good, honest and just lives.

    If that is in fact how the Father acts, I don’t want anything to do with him.

    Think about what you believe and you will realize it makes no sense.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 24, 2007 @ 3:40 am |Reply

  17. “If you ever want to read an excellent book that will answer all your questions about Mormons – read “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” by LeGrand Richards – but please read by itself – study the scripture references as given – I’m sure that you can google the net and find all sorts of things proving it wrong –
    Peace, Grace and Love!” (Happyman)

    Look at what you say – read the book by itself, look only at the scriptures as presented in the book, b/c you don’t want to find anything proving it wrong. Gee, if the book was that true and convincing, how could it even be proven wrong? The fact that you even mention that shows that you know it can be proven wrong, but choose to not believe so.

    Comment by Brad — October 24, 2007 @ 12:53 pm |Reply

  18. Bishop Rick,

    Based on your comments, you have NO understanding at all of the Bible, or of what the Bible says about WHY people go to hell or heaven in the first place. That’s quite evident from the very arguments you try to make. You offer only what you’ve heard about Christianity, but offer no tangible proof or support to back what you say. Try doing that, and then we can talk about it. Until then, you have empty opinions backed by nothing, Rick.

    Comment by Brad — October 24, 2007 @ 12:55 pm |Reply

  19. He is saying read the book and do your own research. If you google it you will get all the crazy anti stuff, so instead of looking for answers through other people look for yourself.

    This book is about mormons, if you want to know about what mormons believe from a MORMON then read the book, If you want to base your opinion, on what non mormons say about mormons beliefs then google mormons. (do you see how this would not make sense) If you are a baptist i’m not going to go ask my friend the Catholic what you, a baptist, believes. I’m going to go to a baptist to understand what a baptist believes!

    Comment by steffielynn — October 24, 2007 @ 2:55 pm |Reply

  20. Brad,

    You crack me up. You back up none of your statements but everyone else’s statements are empty and backed by nothing.

    I assure you I have done EXTENSIVE research on the Bible. I have read the OT through twice (no easy task) and the NT through too many times to remember. Plus I have read isolated parts of both numerous times. I have researched EVERY book in the Bible learning about its origin, when it was written, who it was written by, who it was written to, the environment of the time it was written, items that were changed after the original canon, etc. ad nauseum.

    Don’t even try to challenge my understanding of the Bible.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 24, 2007 @ 3:34 pm |Reply

  21. Hello Brad –

    Sorry you mistook my words – Steffielynn has it right –

    When reading a book – use the references that are in the book – if the book points to a scripture passage – by all means read that passage – ponder it – read what the author says about it. If you go searching for the meaning of that scripture from someone that wants to prove the book or concept wrong you will not find what you are looking for… Unless your original goal is to try and disprove the book – but then why read it –

    If I wanted to find out about Catholics and read through the Catechism – If I had a question on something that is stated there , such as the Eucharist – would I go and look up a anti-catholic authors or websites to see if it’s true or even to get an understanding of what they mean– of course not… I would have to use the scriptures that they use and pray and ponder about them – I would read Catholic authors and see what they say and ponder that –

    Comment by happyman4 — October 24, 2007 @ 4:05 pm |Reply

  22. “He is saying read the book and do your own research. If you google it you will get all the crazy anti stuff, so instead of looking for answers through other people look for yourself.” (Steffielynn)

    But can’t my own research involve “googling”, to see what others have found out, as well? It seems the ONLY thing that Mormons want others to use is their feelings, when researching for truth. If the “anti” arguments are so poor and weak and untrue, wouldn’t they just fall apart at the seams, and nobody would believe them? If that’s the case, why try to steer people away from them? Is it b/c Mormonism is easily refuted by using them, perhaps?

    “This book is about mormons, if you want to know about what mormons believe from a MORMON then read the book, If you want to base your opinion, on what non mormons say about mormons beliefs then google mormons. (do you see how this would not make sense) If you are a baptist i’m not going to go ask my friend the Catholic what you, a baptist, believes. I’m going to go to a baptist to understand what a baptist believes!” (Steffielynn)

    But I’ve done that. I’ve asked Mormons (on here, and many other blogs as well) what they believe, and why they believe it. I havent’ gone to Catholics to see what Mormons believe, I’ve gone straight to Mormons. Have I not? If that’s the case, then why can’t I just rely on what you (or other Mormons) have said, rather than have to read a book?

    Comment by Brad — October 24, 2007 @ 4:34 pm |Reply

  23. “You crack me up. You back up none of your statements but everyone else’s statements are empty and backed by nothing.” (Bishop Rick)

    Just waiting for any questions, Rick. I’ll be glad to back up anything I say.

    “I assure you I have done EXTENSIVE research on the Bible. I have read the OT through twice (no easy task) and the NT through too many times to remember. Plus I have read isolated parts of both numerous times. I have researched EVERY book in the Bible learning about its origin, when it was written, who it was written by, who it was written to, the environment of the time it was written, items that were changed after the original canon, etc. ad nauseum.

    Don’t even try to challenge my understanding of the Bible.” (Bishop Rick)

    It doesn’t matter how many times you’ve read it, or researched it; it matters whether you understand it, and believe it, correctly. Seems like someone’s a little testy today. Let’s explore your “knowledge” a bit, shall we?

    “…you get all your information from a flawed book that was assembled with books missing and others out of order, and most with various mistranslations.” (Bishop Rick)

    Proof, Rick, proof. You say the Bible is flawed? What about 2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful…”? How would this lead to a “flawed” Bible, unless you believe that God, who inspired the Bible, is also flawed? Doesn’t work. What books were missing, Rick? Surely you don’t refer to the Gnostic “gospels”, which don’t even line up to the whole of Scripture, do you? And the order – is there a prescribed order? And what about the mistranslations, Rick? Exactly which books are mistranslated, and where, and from what?

    “It amazes me that anyone would think that a loving father would condemn some of his children to hell just because they believed something different from his other children, even when all are sincere and live good, honest and just lives.” (Bishop Rick)

    But this doesn’t hold to the whole of the Bible, which you know so well, Rick. Define “good.” Is anyone “good” in the sight of God? Not according to Mark 10:18 “No one is good, except God alone.” There are religions who don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, or is even God – Muslims, Buddhists, many Eastern religions. When Jesus says in John 14:6 “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life – no man comes to the Father, except by Me”, what exactly do you think He means? That people can have their own concept of who Jesus is, but as long as they say the name, they’re in? B/c they “believe something different from his other children”, the ones who believe that he is God the Son. The statement you make does not go in line with Scripture, at all, which is amazing, for one who knows so much about the Bible that he doesn’t want his knowledge even questioned.

    “If that is in fact how the Father acts, I don’t want anything to do with him.” (Bishop Rick)

    Then you probably don’t want anything to do with Him. But I think you may already have that covered, Rick, unbeknownst to you, b/c if you truly believe what you say you believe, you don’t have a proper understanding of God, anyway.

    Comment by Brad — October 24, 2007 @ 4:51 pm |Reply

  24. For all the Mormons citing this book !

    “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder” by LeGrand Richards

    I’ve got it and I’ve read it ! 🙂

    It says that those who don’t get married will be servants to the married mormons in Celstial Kingdom !

    I’ve mentioned this to many single women in church and they think they will have a chance to marry in the next life , but Legrands doesn’t say that .

    I think there will be a severe shortage of servants in the Celestial kingdom unless the Apostle Mark Peterson is right . He said the blacks would be servants there !

    Or is he wrong too ?

    Anyway can’t Mark Peterson do his own chores in Ck if he gets there that is , what an idle man !

    This is a religion all about serving the Mormon Man , he expects multiple wives in CK , he expects unmarried servants in CK , he expects blacks serving him also in CK …

    They wanted it all in this life too ….Pure Narcissism .

    Comment by elder joseph — October 24, 2007 @ 5:30 pm |Reply

  25. Well Brad you seem to have all the answers, you seem to have a perfect knowledge of God. (so you say)

    So why are you here? Are you here to discuss or are you here to belittle everyone else’s beliefs? If you are here to “save” everyone you are not doing a very good job.

    You cannot come to someones home and spit on their floor and expect them to want you to stay. Do you really think you are getting your points across?

    We have our beliefs, and we all want to share them. Some people do not believe in God, to them the bible may just be another book. You will not prove your points by being rude to them.

    As far as the bible goes, I personally believe it is divinly inspired, but is it perfect? no. How can I say that? Because it has been touched by imperfect men. I don’t even believe the Book of Mormon is perfect. I believe it is possible that there may be flaws. I also believe that there are other books that are missing in the bible, I believe that more may be found one day. I also believe that we all have different interpretations, that we can read a verse and get something totally different out of it then someone else.

    I believe the LDS church is true because I had a spiritual witness. And since I joined the church my heart has changed. When we have a true knowledge and we have been truely converted we experience this change, and we want to share this with EVERYONE.

    Christ said “When thou art converted go and strengthen thy brethren”

    This is what we must do when we recieve this gift of knowledge, we do not try to tear people down, we strengthen them. We desire for them to have what we have! Share the gospel, not contention.

    Comment by steffielynn — October 24, 2007 @ 5:54 pm |Reply

  26. EJ i did not know it said that, I have the book, what page is that on?

    Thanks!!!!!

    Steff

    Comment by steffielynn — October 24, 2007 @ 6:01 pm |Reply

  27. “Well Brad you seem to have all the answers, you seem to have a perfect knowledge of God. (so you say)” (Steffielynn)

    I, at no point, said I have a perfect knowledge of anything, including God.

    “So why are you here? Are you here to discuss or are you here to belittle everyone else’s beliefs? If you are here to “save” everyone you are not doing a very good job.” (Steffielynn)

    I’m here to discuss. If by “belittle” you mean disagree, then yes, by all means, I disagree. I’m not going to lend Mormon beliefs creedence, b/c I don’t believe they have any. I fully and completely disagree with them. As has been said, it is not man’s job to save, but the Holy Spirit’s.

    “You cannot come to someones home and spit on their floor and expect them to want you to stay. Do you really think you are getting your points across?” (Steffielynn)

    I think the points are there; whether you choose to see them or not is, of course, your right.

    “We have our beliefs, and we all want to share them. Some people do not believe in God, to them the bible may just be another book. You will not prove your points by being rude to them.” (Steffielynn)

    I’m not intending to be rude to anyone. I’ve certainly been no more rude than Bishop Rick, at any point. Yet I don’t see you calling him down – perhaps b/c he is of the same line of thinking as you?

    “As far as the bible goes, I personally believe it is divinly inspired, but is it perfect? no. How can I say that? Because it has been touched by imperfect men. I don’t even believe the Book of Mormon is perfect. I believe it is possible that there may be flaws. I also believe that there are other books that are missing in the bible, I believe that more may be found one day. I also believe that we all have different interpretations, that we can read a verse and get something totally different out of it then someone else.” (Steffielynn)

    The Bible says it is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16) and that God doesn’t lie (Titus 1:2), so what does that tell you about the Bible? To say it’s not infallible is to say that you think God can’t overcome man’s imperfections, to make sure His Word gets to us in the form He intended. I would agree with you, however, about the BOM definitely not being perfect. And I would say that just b/c different people have different interpretations about the Bible, doesn’t make each individual person’s interpretation correct to them. You have to look for the proper meaning, according to the whole of Scripture, wouldn’t you agree?

    “I believe the LDS church is true because I had a spiritual witness. And since I joined the church my heart has changed. When we have a true knowledge and we have been truely converted we experience this change, and we want to share this with EVERYONE.” (Steffielynn)

    What was this “spiritual witness”? Was this the “burning in the bosom”? Did you examine the Bible, to see if what you learned about Mormonism, fits into what the Bible says? B/c if you didn’t, then you haven’t followed the Bible’s instructions.

    Comment by Brad — October 24, 2007 @ 7:30 pm |Reply

  28. Hello Brad –

    After reading a lot of the post I really get the feeling that you are not really interested in finding out anything about Mormons – at least from a perceptive of having a civil dialog – one that respects the beliefs of the other – the questions you ask and your tone seem like you are trying to trip someone up – sort of like when they asked Jesus certain questions – you are asking questions the you already know the answers to just – I can’t believe from what you have already written that you don’t know the answer to those 3 question –
    Debating in the way that you are isn’t going to change one beliefs – it only causes people to become defensive –

    I will pray for you, but I will not debate you – because debating with you will not be fruitful to either of us – it will not build you up and you seem only to want to break me down –

    peace, grace and love –

    there is a wonder qoute from Pres – Ezra Taft Benson –

    “Be right, and then be easy to live with, if possible, but in that order.”

    Comment by happyman4 — October 24, 2007 @ 9:52 pm |Reply

  29. Hi elder joseph –

    Actually – from the Marvelous Work and a Wonder (MWW) – LeGrand is quoting scripture – D&C 132:15-16 – This is on page 190 of MWW – He isn’t making anything up –

    15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
    16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

    I’m adding this for clarity –

    17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

    From what I understand this is talking about married people – not those that never married –
    If someone is a member of the LDS church and chooses not to marry in the Temple – then yes – they will become angles (if the make it to the celestial kingdom) – ministering to those that did keep the covenant –

    If someone is not a member of the church and they are married – they will have the opportunity in the Spirit World to accept or reject the Gospel – and will have their work done for them in the Temple –

    If someone in the LDS church does not marry because they never had the chance to – they have been promised that no blessing will be withheld –

    If someone in the LDS church chooses not to marry – they have chosen to be angels…

    Peace, Grace and Love –

    Comment by happyman4 — October 24, 2007 @ 10:40 pm |Reply

  30. Brad said –

    I’m here to discuss. If by “belittle” you mean disagree, then yes, by all means, I disagree. I’m not going to lend Mormon beliefs creedence, b/c I don’t believe they have any. I fully and completely disagree with them. As has been said, it is not man’s job to save, but the Holy Spirit’s.

    So by your own words you are not here to discuss but to bash – and to show mormons are all wrong and you are all right-

    So that’s why are you here –

    Comment by happyman4 — October 24, 2007 @ 11:18 pm |Reply

  31. Happyman4,

    Thank you for clarifying this for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Brad
    You say;

    “Im not intending to be rude to anyone. I’ve certainly been no more rude than Bishop Rick, at any point. Yet I don’t see you calling him down – perhaps b/c he is of the same line of thinking as you?”

    I’m not just picking on you, I have already called both Bishop Rick and Elder Joseph rude (or something close) on a different blog (Mostly EJ) 🙂 They know how I feel and I know how they feel. You are new, and I have to let you know straight away that I will not allow people to belittle my beliefs (or others), at least not here on my blog. I’m sure I am ultra sensitive, I apologize for being so hard on you, But I am extremly passionate about the Gospel! I’m not only a blogger 🙂 but I am also a mother, and that part comes out on here. I do not allow my children to act disrespectfully, and I assume that others should behave in this manner.

    Remember, in order to be heard you must also listen! 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — October 24, 2007 @ 11:26 pm |Reply

  32. Brad,

    It is not belittling to disagree with someone. It is belittling to state someone has no knowledge of a topic or to pick out misspellings and make fun of with sarcastic remarks. You come to this blog with guns blazing, making accusations and talking about splinters ignoring your own beams. This is not appreciated by anyone here. When you confront, expect to be confronted.

    Steffie has called me rude, and she was right when she did. She is also right calling you rude.

    It really isn’t that hard to disagree and have a civilized discussion without insults, warnings, accusations and the such.

    Try it and see how people respond.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 25, 2007 @ 6:05 am |Reply

  33. Happyman, you’re right, I do know the answers to the questions I ask already. And I’m not here to learn more about the beliefs of Mormonism, b/c I already know those. I like to find what makes Mormons believe them, when I find the evidence AGAINST those beliefs absolutely overwhelming.

    Comment by Brad — October 25, 2007 @ 1:01 pm |Reply

  34. I said: “I’m here to discuss.”

    Happyman said: “So by your own words you are not here to discuss but to bash – and to show mormons are all wrong and you are all right.”

    No, you didn’t clean anything up, happyman. Did I not say I’m here to discuss? I discuss from a viewpoint completely opposite of Mormons. By definition, that means if we discuss a doctrinal topic, we will disagree on it. If by “bash” you mean disagree, then yes, I disagree.

    That clears it up better, I think.

    Comment by Brad — October 25, 2007 @ 1:06 pm |Reply

  35. Steffielynn,

    We disagree – there’s no getting around that. I am a father of 4, so I know about kids, as you do. You are welcome to tell me you disagree with me – it doesn’t hurt my feelings. I, too, am passionate about what I believe – but it is polar opposite of what you believe.

    By nature, if 2 people are passionate about religion, but they completely disagree, sparks can fly. Be prepared for that, if you open a blog to discuss religion.

    Comment by Brad — October 25, 2007 @ 1:08 pm |Reply

  36. “It is not belittling to disagree with someone. It is belittling to state someone has no knowledge of a topic or to pick out misspellings and make fun of with sarcastic remarks. You come to this blog with guns blazing, making accusations and talking about splinters ignoring your own beams. This is not appreciated by anyone here. When you confront, expect to be confronted.” (B Rick)

    Rick, you do realize that I haven’t complained about anything anyone said to me, right? You’re the one who said “don’t even try to challenge my understanding of the Bible.” When you make a comment such as that, you need to be prepared to back it up, else you shouldn’t make it. When after you make such a comment, you make one of the most common mistakes people do with Revelation (adding an “s” to the end of it when spelled or pronounced), it shows me that you really don’t have all the “understanding” you say you do. I will back up anything I say, Rick; be prepared to do the same, if you’re going to make statements.

    “Steffie has called me rude, and she was right when she did. She is also right calling you rude.” (B Rick)

    That’s fine.

    “It really isn’t that hard to disagree and have a civilized discussion without insults, warnings, accusations and the such.

    Try it and see how people respond.” (B Rick)

    Pot, meet kettle. By the way, I haven’t seen any response to the answers I left you for all the questions you asked, Rick. Is one forthcoming?

    Comment by Brad — October 25, 2007 @ 1:13 pm |Reply

  37. Brad

    These comments have turned into arguments and the arguments don’t make any sense. If you already know what we believe then please stop trying to bait people into saying something so that you can argue it. We have all spent a lot of time asking you to be respectful. It seems to me you have not heard any of us.

    My purpose on this blog is to express gratitude for the gospel and the wonderful change it has brought in my life, to share my experience with others. I am not here to argue, I do not mind people disagreeing as long as they are polite. If you DO want to discuss that’s great, but if you do not at the same time want to listen then you need to move on. (I hope you choose to stay)

    Also I think you should know that I was once like you, I believed the same things you do! I understand where you are comming from. Once I stopped talking and started listening, I found out what the LDS REALLY believe!

    Comment by steffielynn — October 25, 2007 @ 1:31 pm |Reply

  38. Brad,

    It is obvious to everyone on this blog, that you are perfect and we are all in error and in jeopardy of eternal hell.

    From observing your comments, responses, and questions, it is also obvious to me that you have a far better understanding of the Bible, mission of Jesus, the eternities and all things religious, than I could ever hope to have.

    You also admittedly already know the answers to all your questions.

    Under these circumstances, why would I want to put forth a feeble attempt to debate with you, when I know I will lose. That is, after all what you want…to debate. If you are not looking for understanding or answers to your questions, you must be looking to debate.

    Since such a debate would be fruitless, why bother?

    I hereby retract my statement regarding you challenging my knowledge of the Bible. As you pointed out, my making the most common mistake people make regarding the Book of Revelation shows that I know nothing about the Bible. You have exposed me for what I am…just a wannabe.

    I am not worthy to discuss anything with you regarding religion, so I will humbly retract anything I have ever said to you and will refrain from any further BR to Brad communications.

    I consider myself warned.

    Have a nice life.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 25, 2007 @ 3:14 pm |Reply

  39. Goodness I missed a few posts here ..

    Steffie now you know where the quote about becoming angels is in Legrands MW&W book ..

    One thing concerns me though

    Happyman clarified that
    “If someone is a member of the LDS church and chooses not to marry in the Temple – then yes – they will become angels (if they make it to the celestial kingdom) – ministering to those that did keep the covenant –

    So here we have another threat in LDS theology that someone LDS who doesn’t marry in the Temple will end up single and an angel in CK (if they even get there that is .)

    Once again this seems to be down to getting Tithes off people and scaring them into it .Its the same with that scripture in D&C which says those who don’t Tithe will be burned ..

    To me this church seems more preoccupied with keeping members in and tithing, hence entrapping them psychologically through fear like this ….

    If I believed the church I’d happily pay Tithe without the threats …. why have them there as I’m sure all faithfull LDS members feel this way…

    Baptism has very little meaning in this church .Its just a ploy to get unsuspecting converts to believe they will have their sins forgiven etc when in reality they are no better off than a non member ‘infidel’ like me 🙂 unless they become temple recommends .

    This is the real saving part ‘ The Temple recommend ‘. Paying for salvation perhaps ??

    Its a great way to fund the church but to have it as a condition of being acceptable to God is a bit suspect ….

    And If Temple marriage is the most important thing why have a Eunuch Angel Moroni sat at the top of each Temple ?

    Did he not marry in the Temple himself then to have been unfortunate to become an angel ?

    Comment by elder joseph — October 28, 2007 @ 11:20 pm |Reply

  40. Hello EJ –

    Sorry I haven’t look ed at this all weekend – my older childer came home –

    You said –

    So here we have another threat in LDS theology that someone LDS who doesn’t marry in the Temple will end up single and an angel in CK (if they even get there that is .)

    Once again this seems to be down to getting Tithes off people and scaring them into it .Its the same with that scripture in D&C which says those who don’t Tithe will be burned ..

    I never said that anyone would burn 🙂 for not paying tithing –
    The bible ask – would you rob God – Tithing has been around forever – if people or other religions choose not to follow the command – well that should not be a criticism against the LDS church because it does follow the commandment –

    If someone makes a informed choice – then that is their choice – why blame someone else? If I break the law – I have to face the consequence of that law – tithing is a law –

    Enjoy:-))

    Comment by happyman4 — October 29, 2007 @ 2:48 pm |Reply

  41. EJ also said –

    This is the real saving part ‘ The Temple recommend ‘. Paying for salvation perhaps ??

    You can’t get a recommed if you don;t hold to the WoW or cheat on your wife – or cheat on your taxes –

    I would never call you an infidel – Some day we may meet in the Temple 🙂

    Comment by happyman4 — October 29, 2007 @ 2:55 pm |Reply

  42. happyman,

    Is one scripture in Malachi your basis for stating that tithing is a commandment?

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 29, 2007 @ 4:29 pm |Reply

  43. EJ

    happyman4 did not even mention tithing, why are you picking this apart. And he is correct there are many things (laws) that you must keep to go to the temple!

    Anyways 2 of the lessons in church yesturday were about tithing. They were both great lessons!
    I actually learned a lot. One thing I learned from the people at my church, who were in these discussions, was that they love the Lord. They know this is His church. They GLADLY give their 10%. They stated that giving back a little to our Father who has given us EVERYTHING is not a lot to ask! (I have always felt this way) They also talked about how tithing is a sacrifice, the Lord doesn’t NEED our money, but He wants people to give back and show that they honor Him.

    Do you know that in our discussions not one person brought up paying tithing as a way to go to the temple? It’s true EJ. Paying tithe is a command with blessings promised if you keep that command, but people keep it because they WANT to, not because they HAVE to! They don’t do it for the blessings, they do it because they love God!

    Ej even you have said you give to the church!

    Comment by steffielynn — October 29, 2007 @ 6:02 pm |Reply

  44. Hi Bishop –

    It is well known that tithing is a law of God – that is how the temple was supported and the temple priest – the people gave thier 10% –

    Here is a article that I quickly googled – Tithing is not a “mormon’ thing:-)

    http://tossingtables.com/podcasts/tithing.html

    Comment by happyman4 — October 29, 2007 @ 6:13 pm |Reply

  45. Steffie,

    EJ is merely stating that you cannot get a Temple Recommend if you are not a full tithe payer, and that the Temple is where all the blessings of the kingdom reside. He is right about this.

    I also believe that “most” mormons give out of generosity, not fear, but that doesn’t change the fact that the fear motivation does exist.

    You know how EJ is, he likes to blind slap you with stuff that had nothing to do with the original post, but he somehow manages to tie it in.

    I love reading his posts. They almost always make me laugh. No one should take offense to anything EJ writes. He is good natured and sincere. Its not his fault he is Brittish 🙂

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 29, 2007 @ 6:18 pm |Reply

  46. happyman,

    I suggest you read carefully the article you googled.
    It states that tithing was done away with under the new law of Christ and was replaced by voluntary giving (of no specified amount) as precedence was set by Paul to all the Christian churches.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 29, 2007 @ 6:45 pm |Reply

  47. Yes he is right, but it’s not the only law you must obey, (which is what happyman was saying)

    To say you must “pay” your way into the temple, is twisting our beliefs, and making it into something it is not.

    Just for a moment pretend we did not have temples, would members still pay tithe? I know I would!

    Comment by steffielynn — October 29, 2007 @ 7:15 pm |Reply

  48. I think active members would pay tithing with or without the Temple Recommend stipulation because they believe that is the right thing to do. I also agree they are not being directly forced or coerced.

    But I have to agree with EJ in that the blessings of the Gospel are only available to tithe payers. There are instances where tithing is not possible regardless of what you hear about poor families that pay tithing and don’t buy groceries only to have neighbors bring food by their house. I know these things happen, but they are the exception, not the rule.

    I just don’t think Christ would deny someone entrance to the Temple simply because they didn’t pay a full tithing.

    You have to understand where I’m coming from though. I don’t believe tithing is a commandment. It was abolished (per Paul in the letter to the Hebrews) after the atonement. This is very clear. Tithing was re-instituted as a “commandment” by the Catholics in the 6th century AD. There is nothing scriptural that can back up the reinstitution of a mandatory tithe. Paul spoke about giving voluntarily on many occasions and spoke that one’s family comes first above all.

    This isn’t anti-mormon, this is anti-tithing as a mandatory practice by both mormons and catholics.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 29, 2007 @ 8:04 pm |Reply

  49. I also understand that full tithe payers that break the law of chastity or civil law for that matter, also don’t get in. I have no problem with that, but keeping someone out for not paying tithing when all else is in order doesn’t sit well with me.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 29, 2007 @ 8:08 pm |Reply

  50. Well I agree, if you are not able to then you should not be denied. But maybe you aren’t. Because we don’t know who pays tithe and who doesn’t. The church, I’m sure, is able to make exceptions. There are other ways of tithing if you don’t have money, you can offer your time instead. I don’t know if this happens but I would assume that it does! (Next Sunday I am going to bring this up and ask this specific question, and the missionaries are comming over tonight so i’ll ask them too, if I find anything out i’ll let you know!)

    You may not believe it is a commandment, but other members do, as well as chastity, murder, WofW, etc. So all are laws and ALL must be kept. Some may have no problem with tithe, but they can’t keep other commandments, but they are all the law.

    Comment by steffielynn — October 29, 2007 @ 8:22 pm |Reply

  51. I think most members believe it (as well as the other things you mention) are commandments. I did as well until I did my own research. By complete accident, I came across a Thesis on tithing where the author took the stance that tithing was no longer a commandment, but had been done away with after the atonement. He did thorough research on the subject and found countless scriptural references to back up his thesis, and could find none to refute it. I have looked up many (not all) of these references and it is quite clear to me that mandatory tithing was repealed 2000 years ago.

    Tithing was a Jewish commandment, but was never a Christian Church commandment. It could not have been restored by JS because it never existed to begin with. Just the opposite. It was repealed by the Christian Church and re-instated by JS. If you feel that JS was justified in doing so, that’s fine, just know that there is nothing in the early Christian church that backs that up. This also goes for the law of consecration. Nothing in the scriptures or early church to back up that law. That was not a restoration of anything, but was introduced by JS.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 29, 2007 @ 8:57 pm |Reply

  52. HI Bishop Rick-

    🙂 Like I had said -I quickly goggled it to show that the law of tithing has been around for awhile – If I remember my NT right – the early church members gave everything to the church – just like the early LDS – so problem like the early church – the saints could live it and are now back under the law of tithing –

    I was thinking about this on the way home – not just about tithing – but about choice – we have free will – we can choose to obey or not to obey – and whether someone agrees with our beliefs or not doesn’t really matter – people can questions my beliefs – but their questions – or even their saying my beliefs are wrong does not make my beliefs wrong – I worry about God’s judgment – not the judgment of man –

    If someone doesn’t believe – that’s up to them – I can try and explain my beliefs in a simply manner – but I do not have to justify to anyone my beliefs ( I don’t feel as though anyone is making me – as I see this as a reasonable discussion and do not take offense and I hope I give no offense)

    Some one asked me on Sunday – I think it was you – want I would do if the current prophet came out and said that the BoM wasn’t really historical – or something like that – I couldn’t find the post –
    For me it comes down to faith – first I do not believe that a prophet would do that – but if one did I am soooo sure that he would have first put it through his councilors and then throw the 12 – they would have all commented on it among themselves – They would then announce it in a general conference – Am I’m sure that almost all of the talks that came out of that conference would be on that topic – at that point I would pray and let the spirit confirm it to me – I may have to pray hard – but the Spirit would confirm it.

    As you know – to be a LDS is not to be a part-time person – but to be a LDS it who and want you are – It’s first Faith and then repentance – then baptism and then the gift of the Holy Ghost – then it’s a continuing process ( where baptism is recommitted to each time we take the sacrament)-

    On tithing keeping you out of the temple – I like Steffielynn response in that it is up to the Bishop to work with that person – The Bishop asked the question – are you a full tithe payer – he doesn’t asked how much you make and then figures out how much you owe –
    The Bishop probably will not sign off on the temple recommend if you say that you are not a full tithe payer – but would work with you getting to the point that you can be – Are you not paying tithing because you need a big screen TV – or because you don’t have enough to eat – big difference – Just like you can not attend the temple until you are in the Church for a year – that year can be used to prepare yourself to go to the temple – be become a full tithe payer – of become honest – or to quit drinking coffee (gee I really love coffee) –But if the Temple is something that you strive for – the Lord will make it possible – anything of value is worth sacrifice – the prospect of living eternally with my family or having more spending money now – in my mind not a big choice 🙂

    Now you may not agree with me – and I am not telling you that you have to – but those are my beliefs – I lost them once – I do not plan on loosing them again – I must hold close and tight to the iron rod – just like the song (maybe I’ll do a you tube on that)

    Peace and grace

    Comment by happyman4 — October 29, 2007 @ 9:02 pm |Reply

  53. happyman,

    That was not me that asked the question about “…if the church said the BofM was not true…”. I don’t know who it was, but it sounds like a question EJ would ask.

    Regarding the early church living the law of consecration, please give me some references. I am not aware of any and do not believe this to be so. I am more than happy to research it though.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 29, 2007 @ 9:28 pm |Reply

  54. Acts 2:44-45 (King James Version)
    King James Version (KJV)

    44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

    45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

    Acts 4:32
    32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

    Then there is the story about Ananias and Sapphira when they held back – see Acts 5:1-11

    enjoy:-)

    Comment by happyman4 — October 30, 2007 @ 7:00 pm |Reply

  55. Acts…if you read the book of Acts, it can be assumed that it was written by someone that was not an eyewitness but rather a propagator of stories handed down by proclaimed eyewitnesses. Not that this has any bearing.

    The first half of Acts (chapters 1-12) which your references fall, tell of the early church in Jerusalem and Judea having Peter as the main character. The second half of the book has Paul as the central character.

    This is key because both Peter and Paul disagreed on many doctrinal issues. Peter leaned more towards traditional Jewish doctrine, where Paul leaned toward Gentile-based doctrine.

    The references you give definitely describe what we would consider similar to the Law of Consecration. That said, Paul is quoted in many of his letters, advocating voluntary charity, and only during times of need.

    Who is right?

    Peter, who was closest to Jesus, but clearly holds to Mosaic Law, or Paul, who never met Jesus during Jesus’s lifetime (rather in a vision on the road to Damascus) but seems to preach the new Law of Christ?

    Comment by Bishop Rick — October 30, 2007 @ 9:52 pm |Reply

  56. happyman4

    you said

    “Then there is the story about Ananias and Sapphira when they held back – see Acts 5:1-11”

    acts 5:1 says sold a possession ?

    They were struck down for lying to God …… lying to the Holy Ghost was lying to God , which means the Holy Ghost is God .It didn’t say they lied to one of the gods . Just a side issue ! 🙂

    Its not clear to me how they went about because it does talk about meeting in their houses ( did they still own them ?) and also I’ve read the part about a cheerful giver as in donations … Its mixed to me …

    This is a great pasage for prospective cult leaders who want to exploit their followers financially .

    I’m confident if I held anything back from The LDS Priesthood in an attempt to strip me financially that nothing would happen to me …

    I wouldn’t lie though in that crude manner .

    Comment by elder joseph — October 30, 2007 @ 11:08 pm |Reply

  57. EJ – It’s interesting how everthing goes back to a “cult”

    Comment by happyman4 — October 31, 2007 @ 11:29 am |Reply

  58. On Tithing

    Brigham Young Journal Of Discourses 16 p112

    “Brother Brigham, do you pay your
    Tithing?” I can answer with all propriety in the negative. I have never paid my Tithing, and if I turn to the
    right, left, front and rear, I shall seek in vain for a man in this Church who has paid his Tithing strictly.”

    available here http://www.jhuston.com/jod.htm

    Happyman4

    About ‘cult’
    what would call David Koresh’s Religion .He brought death and destruction to his followers , he slept with young girls , claimed to be the messiah or a prophet …..

    What about Warren Jeffs’s church . What would you call them ?

    What if your wife or children was having discussions with his missionaries ? How would you feel ?

    And what if they were practising polygamy secretly whilst all the time denying it and your wife was falling for the missionary line of being good and christlike etc ….

    What if you knew they were marrying off young convert girls to old men ( prophets and apostles) in the name of God . Would you let your teen daughter convert without warning her or doing something ?

    Would you not be concerned ?

    Comment by elder joseph — October 31, 2007 @ 12:54 pm |Reply

  59. Hi EL –

    Read the entire article by BY – you only took one sentence and made it appear that BY didn’t pay tithing but was requiring others to pay – it’s actually a very good sermon on tithing from the quick read I just did – he continued to say “I have paid a great deal of Tithing, more perhaps than any other man, or any other ten men who were ever in the Church, and yet my Tithing is not paid. But I pay Tithing, and when the grain upon my farm is ripened, or the cattle upon it are matured, I say to my men, “Be sure and pay the Tithing on whatever we have raised.” But in some instances I have found that it was neglected.
    Peace –

    Comment by happyman4 — October 31, 2007 @ 4:14 pm |Reply

  60. happyman4

    The point was he admitted he didn’t pay an honest tithe and assumed no one else did either …

    I don’t even believe him myself .He was just trying to get others to pay in my opinion…

    He actually became a rich man running the church and being the prophet Of God ….

    I think one of his wives spilled the beans on his business activities and how he put some assets in his name instead of the church .

    I’m just looking into this . Ann Eliza Young .. book on the called Wife no19 .

    http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/19thwife/frntmtr.pdf

    Comment by elder joseph — October 31, 2007 @ 10:28 pm |Reply

  61. EL –

    I read it differant than you –

    I see that the heading of this blog is I believe in Christ –

    An I do –

    Peace –

    Comment by happyman4 — November 1, 2007 @ 1:09 am |Reply

  62. HM,

    You don’t, you only think you do.

    You’re so blinded by all the crap you’ve been fed by the Mormon church that you don’t even see your writings for what they are – opinion based on feeling implanted by a man-made church.

    How does the Koolaid taste today?

    Comment by Brad — November 1, 2007 @ 5:04 pm |Reply

  63. Brad,

    I asked you numerous times to be respectful!

    I can tolerate only so much, And I am so tempted to delete you and give you a piece of my mind….

    But this is what you want isn’t it? You want to pick a fight and cause anger. How can you call yourself a Christian???????????????????????? You express you smugness well, you give TRUE Christians a bad name.

    Happyman is expressing HIS beliefs and does so in a loving way, you can learn something from him.

    Please read this post again, and listen to the song…

    Comment by steffielynn — November 1, 2007 @ 5:50 pm |Reply

  64. Happyman, I’m so sorry that people can be so ridiculous. Christ knows that you know Him, and that is all that matters!!!!!!!!!

    I was tempted to erase Brads comment, but then I realized that he is a fool and everyone can see him for what he truely is. So I will leave it, for that reason only.

    Comment by steffielynn — November 1, 2007 @ 5:58 pm |Reply

  65. SteffieLynn –

    Thanks – I was reading again about the tree of life and those in the spacious building – Sort of brings things into perceptive – we choose to hold to the iron rod firmly after we eat of the fruit –

    Peace and grace

    Comment by happyman4 — November 1, 2007 @ 7:36 pm |Reply

  66. happyman

    The last time I thought of the Tree Of Life and The Spacious Building I remember it coming from Joseph Smith’s father’s dream but he had a rope to hold on to in his version !

    1 Nephi 11: 1 For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, ………..

    Who really desired to know what his father had seen ? Nephi or Joseph ?
    🙂

    Comment by elder joseph — November 1, 2007 @ 10:09 pm |Reply

  67. Happyman

    I’m holding on……. tight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 1, 2007 @ 10:30 pm |Reply

  68. I’m holding to the rope !!!!! lol

    Comment by elder joseph — November 1, 2007 @ 10:44 pm |Reply

  69. You should, it would do you some good!

    Comment by steffielynn — November 1, 2007 @ 10:57 pm |Reply

  70. Happyman,

    You are a stupid fool. Only stupid fools would believe what you do. I can’t believe you think this koolaid tastes good.
    How stupid can one person be? All I can do is shake my head at your ignorance.

    Please join my church.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 2, 2007 @ 4:13 am |Reply

  71. Happyman,

    How stupid did my last post sound?

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 2, 2007 @ 4:14 am |Reply

  72. The topic here seems to be about belief in Christ. I grew up thinking that I believed in the one and only Christ. That was the Christ who would come to the new Jerusalem. The emphasis on Jesus Christ, as our elder brother according to Joseph Smith, who would come to this earth to help us get to one of the kingdoms in heaven. Again, Jesus knew before He was born that He was to die for our own sins. The importance of His suffering was in the garden and not necessarily on the cross. Jesus is the God of this world and he did not come from a virgin birth, rather a woman that had a sexual encounter with the Father in the heavens. I was taught that the stories in the Bible were good, yet they could not compare to the stories in the Book of Mormon. I knew, without a shadow of a doubt, that I was in the only true church and that the prophet was led and inspired by the Father. I thought I knew at that time that Jesus was over my life to a certain point, in which, the prophet and those with the priesthood had the authority to make final decisions for my life. Example, I needed to marry due to the fact that I did too much kissing on one date when I was a teen. The prophet of this day has publicly stated that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes in a different Christ than what the Bible speaks of.
    Read Romans 5:12-21. It talks about how sin entered into the world by one man and it passed upon all men. Jesus Christ had to become a “fail safe” because of the sin that was committed in the garden of eden. Do I believe in Christ? YES. Do I believe that he can only go so far with his saving grace? NO. It is only through the grace of Jesus Christ that we are saved from ALL sin, but by His faith that we will get to heaven. We just need to continue “faithing” day by day in the assurance that Jesus has forgiven us our original sin and sins committed. Our Father cannot look upon the least of sin. I am no longer a Mormon. I am a Christian who knows that Jesus Christ is Lord of all and will always be God forever. He is the only one that can give me entrance into heaven. Not Joseph Smith.

    Comment by handmaiden — November 5, 2007 @ 5:19 am |Reply

  73. handmaiden,

    Do you think Mormons are saved?

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 5, 2007 @ 6:58 am |Reply

  74. Handmaiden you say

    “The prophet of this day has publicly stated that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believes in a different Christ than what the Bible speaks of.”

    REALLY?????? Please correct me if I am wrong (I’m sure someone will) But I do not believe that Gordon B Hinkley has ever stated that we believe in a different Jesus then the Bible speaks of. If I’m wrong would you please tell us when and where he said this!!!!!!

    If you can not provide the proof then I know what you stated is false.

    Also you state
    “The importance of His suffering was in the garden and not necessarily on the cross.”

    Again where has a prophet said this? They were both important, one is not over the other!

    I want to again make it VERY clear, that I believe in Christ, He is my Savior, and I know He lived and died for me (and YOU)!!!!!!

    Comment by steffielynn — November 5, 2007 @ 12:41 pm |Reply

  75. The Church does teach and emphasize his suffering in the garden as the significant event.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 5, 2007 @ 3:22 pm |Reply

  76. It was in the garden where he took upon him at that time the sins of the world, so YES it is very significant, why do others NOT emphasize this important part???? It’s not that the LDS say it is MORE significant, It seems they are the only ones even putting ANY significance on it!

    Comment by steffielynn — November 5, 2007 @ 3:33 pm |Reply

  77. “REALLY?????? Please correct me if I am wrong (I’m sure someone will) But I do not believe that Gordon B Hinkley has ever stated that we believe in a different Jesus then the Bible speaks of. If I’m wrong would you please tell us when and where he said this!!!!!!” (Steffielynn)

    Here’s the excerpt she references. The LDS Church News reported: “In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness [sic] of Times'” (June 20, 1998) Look up the article, and see if for yourself.

    “If you can not provide the proof then I know what you stated is false.” (Steffielynn)

    Ain’t that the truth… that’s what Christians say to Mormons all the time. Know what the response is? “I have a witness of the Spirit – I don’t need proof.” If that wouldn’t suffice for you (based on your comment above), why do you expect that to suffice for those of us who ask the question of you? Show us the proof – which is especially hard, when actually all of the proof exists to show that Mormonism has no proof.

    Comment by Brad — November 5, 2007 @ 3:37 pm |Reply

  78. “It was in the garden where he took upon him at that time the sins of the world, so YES it is very significant, why do others NOT emphasize this important part???? It’s not that the LDS say it is MORE significant, It seems they are the only ones even putting ANY significance on it!” (Steffielynn)

    Where, in the Bible, do you get this line of thinking from? Or is it a line of thinking derived solely from Mormon scripture?

    Comment by Brad — November 5, 2007 @ 3:38 pm |Reply

  79. SO…… GBH did NOT say we believe in a different Jesus then the BIBLE speaks of,

    What he said was,
    ” The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.”

    He’s speaking about the “traditional beliefs” NOT biblical beliefs. BIG difference!!!!!!!!!

    I ask her to prove it because it is something she said someone SAID, so there would be proof.

    You ask me to prove there were nephites, etc. Things I CANNOT prove, Just like you cannot PROVE that Jesus was raised from the dead. Again BIG DIFFERENCE.

    And as I thought, what she said was taken out of context!

    Comment by steffielynn — November 5, 2007 @ 3:53 pm |Reply

  80. steffie

    I don’t believe that Jesus Christ spoke with Joseph Smith and forced him to take ‘relationships’ with numerous single women who happened to be his housemaids and the many married women he married .I don’t believe Jesus told him to testr his followers by asking for their wives ..

    On that basis I would say that The Mormon Jesus is a different Jesus from the New Testament ..

    You believe its the same one … Maybe when you face a situation of being called to marry a Mormon Apostle ( probably 30 to 40 years older than yourself ) or to give your daughter of 14 to one , then you would see a different Jesus to the one whom you love so much now ..

    I couldn’t love a Jesus who thinks arranging marriages to old men is the way forward and correct principle …

    Would he really put you through all that ? Even the mormon Picture of Jesus doesn’t look the type that would .

    Comment by elder joseph — November 5, 2007 @ 4:56 pm |Reply

  81. Steffielynn, your head is buried in the sand. You have volitional objections to what we’re saying, not rational or fact-based objections.

    Comment by Brad — November 5, 2007 @ 6:23 pm |Reply

  82. EJ the polygamy thing is getting old.

    Brad

    Yes, your right my head is buried in the sand, It’s quite nice really, you should try it.

    Oh well, at least I don’t have a stick up my rear!!!!

    🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 5, 2007 @ 8:54 pm |Reply

  83. Patience Steffie, Patience 🙂

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 5, 2007 @ 9:04 pm |Reply

  84. Bishop rick

    oops was it obvious???? 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 5, 2007 @ 9:15 pm |Reply

  85. Steffie,

    Do you disagree that your arguments are volitional in nature, and not fact-based? For example, when presented with facts that debunk Mormonism, your reply is “I believe it anyway, and always will.” That’s not based on fact, but on feeling.

    Do you disagree?

    Comment by Brad — November 6, 2007 @ 2:12 pm |Reply

  86. Well what are we speaking of exactly? I have been presented with “facts” that aren’t really facts. Most, if not all, is opinion. Did the nephites exist? I believe they did. Did Joseph Smith find plates of brass and translate them? I believe he did. Did Jonah really get swallowed by a whale, hmmm that’s a little more difficult to believe, but I believe he did. Can I prove it? No I can’t, but I can still believe it, and I do.

    So tell me, how is ok for you to believe things that cannot be proven one way or another, but it’s not ok for the LDS?????

    Comment by steffielynn — November 6, 2007 @ 2:37 pm |Reply

  87. Brad,
    There are no facts that “debunk Mormonism”, just as there are no facts that prove it. There are a lot of things that make you step back and wonder what’s going on, but there is always an explanation for them. A person just has to decide if they believe it or not. Mormonism is believed or disbelieved it is not known or unknown? In that respect Mormons are the same as other Christians.

    Comment by Jay — November 6, 2007 @ 2:38 pm |Reply

  88. Steffie,
    I hope you don’t believe that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. The bible says he was swallowed by a fish.

    Comment by Jay — November 6, 2007 @ 2:42 pm |Reply

  89. Oh sorry, my bad…. a fish! 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 6, 2007 @ 2:48 pm |Reply

  90. Steffie

    You say the Nephites existed ? On what basis do you believe it ?

    Where did you get the info which has caused you to conclude this ? Do you also believe the Nephites had Chariots , Steel Swords, armour , Shields etc ?

    In the church DVD The Two Testaments of one fold and one shepherd the church has purposely ignored the book Of Mormon references to the above and instead put their FAITH in and followed Secular Archeology ..( Facts )

    for Instance

    The DVD show a weopon called a Mahacutil ( wooden bat with flint sharp edges ) … The Book Of Mormon has Steel Swords for weopons..

    The DVD shows parotts and a squirrel monkey , neither of which are mentioned inthe Book Of Mormon .. The BofM mentions , Cows Horses etc , neither of which featured in the DVD .

    The Book Of Mormon mentions Chariots with horses , neither were featured in the DVD ..

    The church doesn’t believe in ther historicity of the BofM so why should I …

    Comment by elder joseph — November 6, 2007 @ 3:20 pm |Reply

  91. EJ,
    Good points. I hadn’t even noticed that they avoided being true to what the BOM says in those regards. I can’t wait to see it again.

    Comment by Jay — November 6, 2007 @ 3:53 pm |Reply

  92. I would agree that Mormons by and large are the same as other Christians since the “God” part of your argument is very true and pretty hard to prove or disprove.

    Mormons live the Christian tenant and regardless of what their past leaders did or said, if they truly accept and believe Christ to be their savior it seems they would be saved just as any other good Christian is promised by Christianity. For me the problem is in the hurt and problems they cause to loved ones that choose to believe different from them.

    Mormonism as being anything more than a Christian Church created and run by men is pretty easy to disprove, yes you can explain away just about anything but that doesn’t change the empirical facts that are there. What you can’t prove or disprove, I suppose is whether or not Joseph Smith actually saw God or all the angel and spirit visitations. What you can prove or disprove are the things that Prophets, Apostles and or Church Doctrine pronounced to be the word of God or fact as revealed to them by God, or the Book of Mormon being an actual history.

    “There are a lot of things that make you step back and wonder what’s going on, but there is always an explanation for them. A person just has to decide if they believe it or not.”

    The evidence and facts are there; yes you can explain away whatever you want. There are people that don’t believe the holocaust happened, etc. they can explain it all away.

    If you read through this blog or any other place apologetics or TBMs are explaining things away, It will come down to one of these things when the evidence is to significant to dispute:

    A: Change the belief or Doctrine – The Prophet or Apostle was mistaken
    B: Deny that it was ever an official position
    C: When all else fails and the above two are not possible – It doesn’t matter just have faith.

    I think you can find an example of all three of these strategies in Dallin Oaks talk “The Historicity of the Book of Mormon”

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 6, 2007 @ 3:57 pm |Reply

  93. I don’t know, i haven’t seen the DVD.

    But you are probably correct. But what exactly does that PROVE?????? We are talking about solid factual PROOF

    Comment by steffielynn — November 6, 2007 @ 5:06 pm |Reply

  94. A: Change the belief or Doctrine – The Prophet or Apostle was mistaken.

    Is it reasonable to think that a Prophet, Apostle or anyone for that matter can be right about everything? No, it is not. I think the problem comes because the general membership and indeed non-members have such high expectations of what a prophet is.

    They expect to be told everything they must do, as if the prophet will direct their every step. Many members live like this and it is in reality just plain laziness. Not every word that falls from an LDS leaders (e.g. Bishop, Stake President, Seventy, Apostle or Prophet) lips is doctrine or even relevant to an individual. It always comes down to what you believe is right. Only you will answer to God for your decisions.

    B: Deny that it was ever an official position

    An official position is much different from doctrine. Official positions can be wrong, but doctrine should be eternal. Since the LDS Church is young there has been no standard to define what an doctrine is. Many LDS mistakenly take anything that a prophet says as doctrine. Some will limit that to statements at general conference and the Ensign. Others will accept only what has been approved by either the 1st Presidency or the quorum of the twelve as doctrine. Still others only draw from cannonized scripture for their doctrine. Of all the above I think the latter is probably the safest bet, but even then interpretation of that scripture can get pretty hairy. So when it comes down to it you have to feel that when you stand before God to be judged that in your heart and mind you feel you did what was right. How could God expect you to do something you feel is wrong? It would not be just.

    So this is why we have so much confusion in the LDS faith as to what doctrine is. No one has defined what doctrine is and I don’t see it happening anytime soon. Until it is defined LDS members must rely on their own ability to distinguish between truth and error.

    C: When all else fails and the above two are not possible – It doesn’t matter just have faith.

    I guess if you don’t believe in faith then this would seem like an excuse. The problem is that faith is required in any religion. The admonishment to “just have faith” is used by many Christians to overlook things that we don’t understand (i.e. the Trinity). Why should the LDS religion be any different?

    Comment by Jay — November 6, 2007 @ 5:26 pm |Reply

  95. See my comment on faith in baffled

    the rest is a good rational

    But there is a much easier simpler explanation

    plus I am not talking about a single statement, I am talking when by and large every leader of the church teaches and accepts something. approves it for manuals. THAT has to be considered official doctrine? If not what is even the point then. Why do you even need these people then if it really comes down to your spiritual witness. Such double speak, can’t you see that?

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 6, 2007 @ 5:32 pm |Reply

  96. Are you guys blogging on Company time? It seems there is so much more activity during the week and during the day!

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 6, 2007 @ 5:37 pm |Reply

  97. steffie

    you said ” I don’t know, i haven’t seen the DVD.

    But you are probably correct. But what exactly does that PROVE?????? We are talking about solid factual PROOF ”

    It proves that the church is distancing itself from the Book Of Mormon .They have no faith themselves in its Historicity.

    They just don’e don’e how to get out the conundrum , except evolve slowly and hopew no one notices .This is what JW’s try to do although sometimes they have no choice but to scock the system ! lol

    If the church was what it claimed to be and The Book Of Mormon was what the church claimed it to be there would be no need to start distancing themselves from its contents historically speaking .. ie Horses , Chariots, Steel Swords , Cows ,goats , Sheep , ass Ox , etc etc .. Wheat and Barley ….

    Steffie watch the church DVD The Two Testaments Of One Fold and One Shepherd and see if you spot any Book Of Mormon Animals , Weapons or plants even and let me know I’ve watched it twice so far .I’m due to have another look and see what else they’ve been up to ! lol

    I’m looking forward to more back tracking from the church 🙂

    Comment by elder joseph — November 6, 2007 @ 5:44 pm |Reply

  98. I have an excuse cause I’m a stay at home mom! (although I should be cleaning, but this is so much more fun) 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 6, 2007 @ 5:51 pm |Reply

  99. Conventry,
    A prophet can help keep us grounded. I think its good to call people to repentance every once in a while. It causes us to reevaluate our lives and make sure we haven’t gone off track. A good example of this would be the Relief Society President’s last talk in General Conference.

    Her comments offended loads of LDS women. However, others took them as suggestions that they should apply on an individual basis. The latter group was benefited, the first were not because they felt that they had to be perfect, ideal Moms like the ones she describes in her talk.

    If you expect a prophet to be the source of all your knowledge and believe that all their words are as from God’s own mouth, then you will be disappointed time and time again (If you are a thinking individual). Catholics have seen this just like Mormons (they are the closest thing to Mormons I can think of that has a leader that speaks for God). “Doctrine” seems to change depending on who is the Pope.

    Comment by Jay — November 6, 2007 @ 5:58 pm |Reply

  100. I’m a grad student so I blog when I have free time.

    Comment by Jay — November 6, 2007 @ 6:01 pm |Reply

  101. Based on that line of reason all Christians should be Catholic then they have been doing it the longest and have worked most of the bugs.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 6, 2007 @ 6:02 pm |Reply

  102. I think someone has hacked into my blog and erased everything I’ve written there. Can one of you guys visit it and see if nothing but one post (Scriptural Discussion #8) comes up? If I’ve been hacked, I must have tread on someone’s toes pretty hard…

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 6, 2007 @ 7:37 pm |Reply

  103. Never mind. Apparently it wasn’t a hack. It was a wordpress glitch that they were able to fix quickly. Thank you support! But I’m kind of bummed, anyway. I was kind of hoping that my blog would be important enough to hack…

    Comment by LDS Anarchist — November 6, 2007 @ 8:01 pm |Reply

  104. Coventry,
    Or you could say they’ve had longer to inject the philosophies of man and move further away from the truth. I’m not saying they have, just thought I’d throw another way of looking at it out there.

    Comment by Jay — November 6, 2007 @ 8:05 pm |Reply

  105. Jay

    You said

    “A prophet can help keep us grounded. I think its good to call people to repentance every once in a while.”

    I personally don’t feel the early mormon Leaders were worthy or qualified enough to call anyone to repentance …..

    And Bruce McConkie, I would never accept he was qualified to be a Judge in Israel . Thats sheer ludicrousness in my opinion ..

    I believe I am qualified to be his judge in Israel… and I’ll be light on him 🙂

    Comment by elder joseph — November 6, 2007 @ 8:10 pm |Reply

  106. I’m not sure you can qualify yourself to be a judge in Israel. Why should Brigham Young be any less qualified to call you to repentance than anyone else? If I smoked for 30 years does that make me less qualified to tell my teenage children not to smoke?

    BY and other leaders are there for the purpose of keeping the Church on track. They are simply leaders that members can look to for guidance. If there were no leader there would be chaos. So while they may not be perfect, they do allow the Church to have order. If you don’t agree with them, that’s fine, but they make you think about your state in life, that’s the valuable thing.

    Comment by Jay — November 6, 2007 @ 8:20 pm |Reply

  107. I’m sure there was better guidance outside of Brigham Young and the church at the time .

    Those who sstayed behind and joined Strang didn’t get persecuted anymore . Unfortnately he decided on Polygamy himself after he saw the control he had on people and women and was murdered sfterwards .The church then reformed and lived in peace and monogomy whilst the Utah Mormons suffered in further tribulation .

    I don’t need LDS Leaders to advise me on things .Some of their advice is actually not good .. The good they teach is generally common sense .

    Its clear to me that they have no more light or revelation than anyone else on average in the religion business …

    Comment by elder joseph — November 6, 2007 @ 9:07 pm |Reply

  108. I have to agree with EJ. There has only been 1 vision (JSF) and 2 declarations added to the D&C since Joseph Smith, and the 2 declarations were just righting wrongs.

    Beyond that, it is really just common sense. I haven’t really seen any attempts at new insight or information from the prophets…at least nothing that has been accepted by the brethren.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 6, 2007 @ 9:30 pm |Reply

  109. EJ and Rick,
    I agree with you both. It does seem that the LDS Church has become a much more mild religion as time has past, its rough edges being hewn off. Most of what is preached now in General Conference are things we have already heard thousands of times before only with different faith promoting stories attached. It appears that today’s leaders have learned from history. They’ve learned not expound on controversial topics, this always gets them in trouble. Now they pretty much stick to the same things, obey the ten commandments, don’t look a pornography, don’t gamble, read your scriptures, pray, have faith, etc, etc. It’s all good advice.

    The only way the LDS faith differs now from mainstream Christianity is that they still accept Joseph Smith, the BOM, POGP, and D&C and all the unique doctrine that comes with them.

    Comment by Jay — November 6, 2007 @ 10:01 pm |Reply

  110. Many Of The church Teachings are good but many seem designed to keep people held or entrapped pyschologically in mormonism .

    I heard a girl in sunday school class say how she makes sure she payes tithe especially because she wants to keep her family together for ever … It sounds like Mafia type racketeering masqueraded as religion to me .

    Many marriages split when one side finds out the church may not be true and the other half thinks the eternal family is at stake ..

    Many fear to leave because of family and social ties .

    Those working for the church have jobs and pensions to loose for declaring non belief .

    One Apostle ( The German ) told us to STOP sinning in the last conference … as if he has stopped sinning himself Mr Paul Dunn !

    From what I’ve experienced , its a difficult religion to escape from and can entrap the weak and vulnerable .

    Another erroneus teaching is from Gordon Hinckley when he says the BofM is what is says it is ? The BofM says its written to the Lamenites who are a remnant of the House of Israel ? It says also they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians ?

    If tithe was payment to a magazine subscription I would want a refund for that duff info ! 🙂

    I think I will trust Scholars on that who have dedicated all their lives to research on Indian ancestry and not to Joseph Smith’s quick 3 months with his head in a hat to come up with his solution … Even his 6 years on the job money dig experience on farmers fields is not convincing .

    How many of us would dare cite on our CV we have hat and stone experience when looking for a job . Even BYU would reject that !

    Comment by elder joseph — November 7, 2007 @ 12:11 am |Reply

  111. EJ,

    You never fail to get a laugh out of me.
    Your delivery is hilarious.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 7, 2007 @ 12:59 am |Reply

  112. What I can’t look at porno or play blackjack anymore 😦

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 7, 2007 @ 1:14 am |Reply

  113. EJ,
    Nice diatribe.

    One Apostle ( The German ) told us to STOP sinning in the last conference … as if he has stopped sinning himself Mr Paul Dunn !

    Does he really need to stop sinning to admonish others to? Isn’t that what preachers around the world do?

    From what I’ve experienced , its a difficult religion to escape from and can entrap the weak and vulnerable .

    I don’t see any bars on the windows. Many say that religion in general entraps the weak minded and vulnerable. While religion certainly takes in weak minded and vulnerable people, I don’t think they are the only ones “trapped” by its greedy hands. Many intelligent people can be found in all religions. I grew up in a ward mostly composed of highly educated people (Doctors, lawyers, PhDs in one thing or another) all active committed Mormons. So your “mormonism attracts weak vulnerable people” argument doesn’t hold too much water.

    It [The BOM] says also they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians ?

    Actually, it is the introduction that says that. That particular phrase was never in the original Book of Mormon, but added later.

    Comment by Jay — November 7, 2007 @ 1:17 am |Reply

  114. Jay,

    I could be wrong, but my take on what EJ is saying is:

    1. The LDS church attracts weak and vulnerable people, not exclusively weak and vulnerable people. The statistics actually back this up with the large gains in membership being in underdeveloped countries. This is not to say that influential people of status can’t also be attracted.

    2. The BofM says the lamanites are the principle ancestors of the American Indians. Well it is true that this was added to the BofM after the fact, but:
    A: It is still there.
    B: The reason it was added in the first place is because this belief is found in several sections of the D&C. Many men were called to preach the gospel to the Lamanites thru direct revelation to Joseph Smith from Jesus. So there is actually canonized scripture to back up this added statement.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 7, 2007 @ 7:09 am |Reply

  115. Jay

    “Or you could say they’ve had longer to inject the philosophies of man and move further away from the truth. I’m not saying they have, just thought I’d throw another way of looking at it out there.”

    That would be another way of looking at it for sure, but then as you understand and see how the Catholic Church has evolved and where they are today if that comes from moving further away from the truth, then the truth was a pretty horrible and nasty thing as they would have been closer to it 500, 1000, 1500 years ago.

    On the Lamanite – Native American conversation, I would you that as an example of my other comment regarding the Church changing its doctrine to fit undeniable evidence. At least up until 1976 you can find vast amounts of talk’s statements by Prophets, church manuals, it wasn’t just mentioned in passing, there full blown sermons given to these people by Prophets this was clearly stated as an absolute.

    Vulnerable people, Bishop Rick is right, most converts are from under developed countries, and also my experience on my mission is that the majority of the good investigators or converts were a bit odd. I think my son is finding this as well in Russia, as his last letter brought back some memories of people I taught and met on my mission, here is an of him tell me about one the convert members in his area

    “I love Uri. He is one of the most interesting people I have ever met. He is on the verge of insanity, but all together still sane. He has been showing me the plans for his ‘jet pack’.”

    I also think the vulnerability is emotional vulnerability and the most intelligent people in the world are susceptible to that, we know that people purchase based on emotion and then rationalize the purchase later. One reason I think there is such a high inactive rate for converts.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 7, 2007 @ 2:55 pm |Reply

  116. Even vulnerable people need the gospel, should the missionaries refuse to teach people because they are a “bit strange”? I don’t think so.

    I understand your point, you are trying to say these vulnerable people are suckered in the church, because they are weak and needy. I know you all think I was vulnerable, and that is how I was suckered. (but i wasn’t) But I think to be vulnerable is not a bad thing. You are more open and able to understand, and humble! Just because someone is building a jet pack and is slightly crazy does not mean he is not human and cannot benifit from the gospel!

    🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 7, 2007 @ 4:19 pm |Reply

  117. It is rather arrogant to assume that developing counties are populated by weak and vulnerable people. I met and saw baptized many intelligent individuals (yes there was an occasional eccentric one) What is more likely the case is that people in these countries still see a need for God in their lives. Those of us in developed countries have what we need and then some, so what purpose does God have for us? (I do think he has a purpose). People of the developing world are much more open to talk about religion and God, so of course more of them will convert. Here in the developed world we shun religion and God. Everyone is afraid to talk about it.

    Mormons aren’t the only ones “harvesting souls” in these third world countries. Many Christian denominations are also increasing their numbers outside of the developed world. And by the way, have you considered that maybe Uri really does know how to build a jet pack☺

    Comment by Jay — November 7, 2007 @ 4:28 pm |Reply

  118. I didn’t say or imply any of those things, I was just stating observations period what you do with those is entirely a personal thing. This is more an acdemic discussion regarding what is truth. I don’t beleive in Santa but I am not arguing that we should get rid of him and deny our children the fun.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 7, 2007 @ 4:30 pm |Reply

  119. He just might, if that farmer can build a space ship anything is possible, Heck when I as on my mission in England I learned that the Mormons had a tunnel running from under the Temple in London to Salt Lake and whisked away the hot English girls to force them into polygamous marriages with old guys.

    I mainly showed that quote for fun, it just brought a smile to my face remembering some of the more eccentric people I met on my mission.

    Comment by conventryRM — November 7, 2007 @ 5:27 pm |Reply

  120. I like eccentric people, they’re interesting and fun 🙂

    How sweet would it be if there was a tunnel from England to Salt Lake! Then EJ could come visit 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 7, 2007 @ 5:56 pm |Reply

  121. My observation of the last two years in church is that about 80% of the converts are Asylum Seekers from the African countries .

    Overall they have caused hardship for the church .They are not generally committed to it and instead once they have their Asylum granted they stop coming ,they have no further need of the church .

    Our Bishop wrote to the area president with his concern at this .It seems he is powerless as Gods mouthpiece for the ward to stop the missionaries baptising them .
    The ward gets caught up in trying to help find jobs for the asylum seekers using false documents .They want to help but its a terrible scenario mindfull of the need of following the law.Those who fail in their Asylum bid end up on the run and one contacted our Bishop for Bail money to get out of a detention camp .He was refused as he would only go on the run again.He was advised to attend church back home on deportation.

    The missionaries will try to schedule someone for baptism even if they have never been to church .They will baptise anyone they can pressure.

    The other 20% of converts are usually people with problems , whether , mental, alcohol, drugs or financial , they just can’t seem to get a grip on life .. For these maybe the church can help give them a purpose and incentive to change .

    I’ve only seen one ordinary convert come into the church who’s life seems to be together , although when I asked him why he is black and I’m white , he replied God made us that way with many colours just like the animals and flowers . It sems that he hasn’t heard about the less valiancy thing yet .He doesn’t come that much to church either .

    Overall the mission effort in my ward looks like a bit of a comedy act to me .

    Comment by elder joseph — November 7, 2007 @ 6:17 pm |Reply

  122. I wrote a little something that might be of interest to all of you!
    http://mormonnomore.blogspot.com

    Comment by handmaiden — November 7, 2007 @ 8:05 pm |Reply

  123. Jay,

    Why are you so defensive about this topic? None of this is aimed at you. Of course developing countries are full of non-weak and non-vulnerable people, many of whom join the LDS church. My point is not so much that these people are weak, but vulnerable yes. They do not have the same access to information that developing countries do. This makes them vulnerable to information that is presented to them by missionaries or any other institution. They really don’t have the means to investigate and research. I don’t think it is a coincidence that the overwhelming growth is from these areas. This is all that I mean. My statement was not intended as a slight.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 7, 2007 @ 8:16 pm |Reply

  124. Bishop Rick

    I agree they are vulnerable and in many ways .

    I think the African countries are very receptive also Partly because Mormonism represents a White American church.Its a way of finding a better life for themselves if they can use the church as a gateway to America or the West .

    Darron Smith the Ousted Black BYU tutor thought this was partly the case in his Interview with John Dehlin ..

    Its something we would all do if necessary so I don’t blame them for that .Its natural that humans want to survive and not only that to better themselves .Church means safety and help .

    I can’t fault my Ward in that respect .They really do as much as they can for them … although they don’t often get commensurate thanks afterwards for it .

    Comment by elder joseph — November 7, 2007 @ 8:26 pm |Reply

  125. Rick,
    I don’t think anyone is attacking me personally.

    I agree that they may be vulnerable in the sense that they don’t have ready access to all the information about the Church, though it is there if they seek it out.

    I experienced this a few months ago when a visiting professor came to work at my University. She had grown up Mormon and went with my family to church while she was here. Her friend that brought her to the University was not Mormon (I think he was some other type of Christian). I don’t know for sure, but I think he took her to his church and there she got a lesson in LDS history. She asked me if there were Mormons that were living polygamy now in Utah (not a typical everyday question). I told her that there were break off groups from the main LDS Church that practiced polygamy, but that they were not affiliated with the LDS Church. She seemed surprised; like it was the first time she had ever heard of such a thing.

    So yes, I agree that many are not well informed about LDS history. However, neither was I after 30+ years in the Church living in the U.S., with 3 years in Idaho and 2 years in Utah and Internet access. I know that the information is in developing countries in the form of pamphlets.

    EJ,
    Sounds like you have a special situation in your area. I can definitely see how some might try to take advantage of a religious organization just to gain entrance into a country. I also can see how missionaries would be sucked into baptizing them. Missionaries are under a lot of pressure to baptized especially in places like England where they are lucky to have 1 or 2 during their missions.

    Comment by Jay — November 7, 2007 @ 9:31 pm |Reply

  126. Although we tend to forget it, we’re all pretty vulnerable. Here in the good old USA, we have vast riches compared to most of Earth’s inhabitants, and yet as King Benjamin reminded his people in Mosiah 4:11, “….I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures….”

    I’m wondering why some of you don’t just start your own “anti-blogs” instead of using Steffie’s a forum for your negativity. You’d no doubt attract quite a readership of like-minded people.

    Comment by marlajayne — November 7, 2007 @ 9:55 pm |Reply

  127. I rocked in England had like 6 or more. I was my senior comp that got made an AP right after, guess they gave him the credit ..:)

    We blog on here because it is here, If you only want to blog with like-minded people you should have a invite only non public blog.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 7, 2007 @ 11:13 pm |Reply

  128. Meant “It was my senior ………” oooops that is what happens when I post to quickly

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 7, 2007 @ 11:13 pm |Reply

  129. Marlajayne,

    It is scriptures like the one you quoted that really cause me grief.

    I am here to tell you and anyone else that will listen:

    YOU ARE NOT NOTHINGNESS !!

    Religion is all about tearing people down, making them feel unworthy for what they have. I’m sorry but that is just utter nonsense.

    No offense intended to you or anyone else.
    This is just a hot button for me.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 8, 2007 @ 1:06 am |Reply

  130. I think what King Benjamin was trying to get across is that although all of us have a spark of divinity within us, we wouldn’t exist unless our Creator granted us life. He can give and He can take away in a skinny minute, whatever that means. Compared to us mere mortals, He is all powerful.

    I wrote what I did because sometimes I observe people preening and prancing around, driving in expensive cars, living in McMansions, dining in great restaurants, and somehow they don’t realize (or they choose to forget) that EVERYTHING they have is a gift from God. In case you’re wondering, I’m guilty of this too! In addition, I’ve often thought of what my life would have been like had I been born in Nigeria or Darfur or Lebanon. Just because we’re fortunate enough to be living in this “choice land” doesn’t mean that we are better than these others whom God also loves. These are His children as well, and just like them, we are vulnerable in so many ways.

    Comment by marlajayne — November 8, 2007 @ 3:14 pm |Reply

  131. Ok, now wait a minute.

    You used McMansion and great restaurant in the same sentence. Was this a Freudian slip?

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 8, 2007 @ 5:35 pm |Reply

  132. MarlaJayne

    I’m a bit uneasy about this Gift of God stuff. At the end of the day it is man which has made our lives easier and more comfortable through ideologies of politics and systems of getting along …. ie economies etc and science .

    As I recall God closed of The Garden Of Eden and made our first parents sort themselves out .Its only through our ‘intelligences’ that we have modernised some parts of the world .

    I’m not sure if religion ever did anything .Its wealth creation through Man’s efforts that feeds the world .

    Of course I’m not complacent and awlays grateful to the creator , but he must be weary of my anger at him for letting us slog it through and learn the hard way .

    Comment by elder joseph — November 8, 2007 @ 9:11 pm |Reply

  133. But EJ had we not learned it the “hard” way, we would not appreciate the things we have.

    If I did not make my kids clean their rooms, do their own homework, and chores, and I did everything for them, they would walk all over me and they would have no knowledge of how satisfying work can be. They would not know how to take care of themselves and they would NEVER make it in the real world. Work is a good thing, you learn and you grow. I think it is simply amazing!

    By the way, where have you been? I wrote you an email. I’m glad to know you are still around 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 8, 2007 @ 9:24 pm |Reply

  134. Steffie,

    When your kids do their homework or clean their room, would you consider that their clean room or check mark on the homework a gift from you or a result of their hard work?

    Just curious.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 8, 2007 @ 9:59 pm |Reply

  135. Bishop Rick

    I would consider it both.

    A gift because I did not do it for them, they had to do it, and therefore a clean room and there little brains being challenged by there homework is the result of my awesome parenting skills

    And it is also a result of there hard work, had they not put in the effort, clothes and toys would still be on the floor, and they would get very bad grades, and would not learn anything.

    Comment by steffielynn — November 8, 2007 @ 10:37 pm |Reply

  136. steffie

    I’m thinking about mans struggle for survival . The clothes on our backs took centuries of developing .. The food we eat took centuries of experimentation to know what was poisenous and what wasn’t . Our early ancestors will have suffered and died eating the wrong plants or contaminated food ( no refigeration etc ) ..

    The shelter we live in ( homes etc ) . Can you imagine our early parents in cold conditions with only bare materials to make some kind of shelter from the elemants .

    No Vaccines from God , no medicine for illness until we learned ourselves .

    Modern advancements never came from religion .Religion has a track record of getting in the way and slowing down progress in science .

    God never that I know of gave us any lessons , except a few punishments along the way ..Why is that ?

    I don’t mean to sound athiest , but religion is struggling to answer my questions or satisfy them 😦 and with you being the only true Church and personally answered from God I thought you might know 🙂

    Comment by elder joseph — November 8, 2007 @ 11:27 pm |Reply

  137. I have been doing some research and I came across something interesting when asked about the violence in Christianity most Christians respond that was the Old Testament, Christ and the New Testament was about love and peace. I ran across this scripture

    Luke 19 27
    But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me. (Christ Speaking)

    Explanations?

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 9, 2007 @ 12:39 am |Reply

  138. EJ

    I think that is called blasphemy, but I’ll give you my OPINION 🙂

    I don’t think people back in the day had it too hard. Infact (and I kid you not) I would LOVE to live in the old days, no cars, no airplanes, The simple life, and they didn’t know any different so it was a good life. There were good things with the bad, families worked together, lived together, they were close. Nowadays its about money and materials, not just basics. I think it is cool how far we have come, but I also find it a bit scary. How much worse can we make things? We are now capable of destroying entire countries. I’m not a tree hugger by any means, I just think the human race is sucky sometimes.

    The reason God put us here was to progress and learn. If He was to give us all the answers, He would be taking away our agency, and thus what is the point?

    As crazy as life is, it is also amazing and mysterious and wonderful. 🙂

    Coventry RM, I don’t have an answer, but it is a interesting point you bring up, I’ll look into it, but I can’t promise i’ll be the one to find any answers so hopefully someone will…….

    Comment by steffielynn — November 9, 2007 @ 1:27 am |Reply

  139. steffie
    If you back to the good old days we are looking at human Sacrifices , we are looking at slaying other nations on behalf of God ( ie Israel versus the Caananites ) ..

    Being Enslaved… Stoning for adultery etc …

    I don’t think life was happy families in the way you are thinking ! lol

    Apart from some of our laws from the bible , we have the Romans to thank for many of them as well as our calendar and also the Babylonians to thank for our Mathematics etc ….

    what did God teach us ?

    Did he give us a language ? Writing ? Clothes ? Shelter ?

    You believe our purpose is to progress and learn . How did we progress and learn without knowing that was our purpose ? The World hasn’t exactly been shaped by Mormonism .

    we cetainly had to learn how to survive.This is still our basic intuition.. Survival , everything else is secondary to that .

    Have you looked into Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond .He explains why some Nations prospered and sunsequently conquered others and other Nations didn’t .Its amazing 🙂

    Comment by elder joseph — November 9, 2007 @ 3:09 pm |Reply

  140. EJ,

    That’s not fair. God did confound our languages for us.

    Afterall, all peoples of the earth at the time, were involved in building the Tower of Babble er Babel. They were being so successful in their efforts that it made God nervous that they might actually be able to reach heaven. For this reason, he confounded the language (The Adamic Language) creating thousands of different languages and dialects. Luckily, the different tribes were confounded with similar language skills so they could at least communicate with each other, if not the other tribes. Since they couldn’t communicate with the other tribes, they migrated away from the middle east and populated the rest of the world.

    This makes perfect sense to anyone that has a full understanding of the entire Bible. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 9, 2007 @ 3:35 pm |Reply

  141. Bishop Rick

    I used to believe in that Tower Of Babel story as a legitimate answer to all the different languages around the world .

    The bit that bothered me all the time was how can anyone build a tower to reach God anyway . So why confound them if the threat wasn’t real and just a waste of time ? lol

    Its like alot of things in the bible , they never really made sense but I just tried to ignore that part !

    I started the Mormon religion with an initial increase in belief and now I’ve seen the history of the church and its problematic theology I’ve now started going further away from belief .

    I’m even looking at black people as possibly the less valiants ? its awful …. I never had that thought before … Even women are reduced to just tools for Polygamist Mormon Male Gods of which I could be one if I just follow the Brethren .

    I need to reset my thinking.

    Comment by elder joseph — November 9, 2007 @ 11:39 pm |Reply

  142. EJ,

    I had the exact same belief system and ignored the same questions. I think that is called cognitive dissonance.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 9, 2007 @ 11:59 pm |Reply

  143. B R

    I now accept and recognise how much cognitive dissonance I experienced/Ignored in the past … scary but at least something can trigger us to come to recognise it and eventually free our minds ……

    I think Mormons call it loosing their testimony ( ie in reality ot means recognising they have been deceived ) , even if they are themselves partly to blame ..

    Steffie

    We look forward to your bid for freedom too and come blogging on our side 🙂 lol

    Comment by elder joseph — November 13, 2007 @ 8:34 pm |Reply

  144. EJ,

    I’m not sure I want Steffie blogging on our side.
    She is so happy and content despite all she knows (cough cognitive cough dissonance). Mormonism works for her. It just doesn’t work for you or me.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 14, 2007 @ 6:24 am |Reply

  145. Ummmm, should I be offended?

    Comment by steffielynn — November 14, 2007 @ 1:44 pm |Reply

  146. Of course not.
    Just a little tongue-in-cheek.
    I was actually defending you…sideways…sorta.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 15, 2007 @ 5:40 am |Reply

  147. ohh ok, then thanks I guess 🙂

    Comment by steffielynn — November 15, 2007 @ 5:41 am |Reply

  148. #137 – Luke 19:27 is the final statement of a parable that describes the eternal fate of those who multiply what they have been given and those who don’t. As a third category, there is the additional comment in vs. 27 about those who simply won’t allow God to rule over them – those who reject Him completely, knowing He should be there ruler. (It is apparent from the wording [“would not that I should reign over them”] that it was an intentional choice they made.)

    In our terminology, these people who are ordered killed in the parable are the equivalent of the only ones we believe will receive spiritual death (complete removal from even the influence of God and total subjection to the devil) in what we term Outer Darkness – those who knew their ruler and simply refused to accept His reign.

    Comment by Ray — November 15, 2007 @ 6:00 am |Reply

  149. Ray

    That would be me the scripture is talking about then.

    I was just doing a word search in the NT and found that passage. Some translations used kill others Slay.

    To bad the inquisition could take scriptures such as this and justify killing non-believers.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 15, 2007 @ 6:26 am |Reply

  150. CoventryRM, I doubt from what I have read of your comments that you fit that designation. I doubt it very much. In fact, I’m pretty sure of it. You come across as a good person who is uncertain and disillusioned, not one who is intentionally rejecting a God you know well enough to recognize as your legitimate ruler. I might be wrong, but I hope not – and think not.

    Amen about the inquisition. People who have a hard time with Mormonism should do a little more research into the background of their own religious tradition. As a former Social Studies teacher, if I didn’t have a personal, spiritual witness, I would have a difficult time being a believing Christian.

    Comment by Ray — November 15, 2007 @ 6:47 am |Reply

  151. Good night, everyone. Much of my introduction to this blog was incredibly depressing (intensified because I absolutely love what Steffie writes), but I am glad I found it.

    Comment by Ray — November 15, 2007 @ 6:50 am |Reply

  152. Ray

    Actually in the strict sense I do fall into that category.

    I believe there is so much more to life, human and spiritual experience than can ever be reached, in my opinion and experience, by “religious faith” has I said in an earlier post just as you, as a Mormon, would feel you have done a good thing by sharing the Gospel and having that message received by someone, I feel the exact same way if I can help someone recover from Mormonism and break the bonds of religious faith. We are the same in that respect.

    I just don’t think you are going to be sent to outer darkness for it or not make it to the highest kingdom and kick yourself for it for all eternity. I just think you are missing out on something wonderful.

    I am not uncertain when it comes to where I stand on these issues concerning any of the current God Myths in existence today. I feel that people greatly limit themselves by hanging onto these foolish traditions of their fathers.

    Yes I once had a testimony just has strong and true as anyone else in the Church (I am know that is subjective but on the same note it is not a fair response to say well maybe you didn’t really have a testimony) I think that comment comes from a place of fear, if mine was as strong as theirs then couldn’t they lose theirs as well so therefore there is no way that it could have been the same and that thought is just to scary.

    I do find it interesting that the Gospel teaches that someone like me is a Son of Perdition but yet when it comes right down to it you say

    “I doubt it very much. In fact, I’m pretty sure of it. You come across as a good person who is uncertain and disillusioned, not one who is intentionally rejecting a God you know well enough to recognize as your legitimate ruler. I might be wrong, but I hope not – and think not.”

    In theory and in scripture and during Gospel Doctrine class and Priesthood meeting it is one thing to talk about all this doctrine and what it means but when it really comes down to personalizing it and saying it to another human it feels pretty lousy so we say something to the effect that you did above.

    You should have a difficult time in believing all this and you should question and search very diligently what this spiritual witness you have really is and what motivates it.

    I hope you don’t take anything I said here as offensive, I am doing the equivalent of you when you bare your testimony, I am not trying to tear down your belief just as you are not tearing down the belief of the those of other faiths when you offer to share what you feel is a more accurate or complete understanding of Christ and his Church. I am just offering you the same, a much higher understanding of self and inner peace, a place of much higher moral ground than I believe will ever be found as a result of religious faith.

    Thank you for your comments in here. I have enjoyed reading them and am glad that someone that seems to be very knowledgeable in his theology is participating on this blog, Steffie was getting out numbered. I was having more fun debating with the Christians calling the Mormons non-Christians something still to this day I find completely ridiculous.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 15, 2007 @ 8:53 am |Reply

  153. Coventry,

    To be a “Son of Perdition” under Mormon doctrine, you have to deny God while KNOWING that He actually exists and what He wants. Essentially, you have to be a bold-faced liar.

    Does that describe you?

    If not, you don’t qualify. Sorry if that’s a disappointment to you (I know some ex-Mormons like to get shock value over self-labeling themselves in this fashion). The worst you can probably qualify for is Telestial status. Unless of course, you are actually a principled and moral person. In which case, you can’t even lay claim to Telestial status, but are now talking Terrestrial.

    I know that “Terrestrial material” doesn’t have the same zing that “Son of Perdition” does, but hey, you can’t have everything.

    Comment by Seth R. — November 15, 2007 @ 12:45 pm |Reply

  154. Seth

    Interesting point, however I agree based on the scriptures there is actually very few references to “Son of Perdition” so what does that leave us. The words of the Prophets, so should I take comfort in your words or put more credence to a Prophet of God?

    (Rusty) a TBM on here made this statement which I don’t believe is a uncommon way of thinking among the Mormon faithful as I have seen it stated here more than once in one form or another:

    “See, the beautiful thing about the Mormon religion is that we can throw away the Bible and the Book of Mormon and any other ancient scripture and still have a religion. Modern revelation. We believe that God still speaks to living prophets”

    So in light of that and in light of what Brigham Young had to say I would say I am without any doubt a son of perdition. I do not say this for shock value but just calling it like I see it.

    “Remarks by President Brigham Young, made in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, July 15, 1860.

    If a person with an honest heart, a broken, contrite, and pure spirit, in all fervency and honesty of soul, presents himself and says that he wishes to be baptized for the remission of his sins, and the ordinance is administered by one having authority, is that man saved? Yes, to that period of time. Should the Lord see proper to take him then from the earth, the man has believed and been baptized, and is a fit subject for heaven-a candidate for the kingdom of God in the celestial world, because he has repented and done all that was required of him to that hour. But, after he is baptized and hands have been laid upon him for the reception of the Holy Ghost, suppose that on the next day he is commanded to go forth and preach the Gospel, or to teach his family, or to assist in building up the kingdom of God, or to take all his substance and give it for the sustenance of the poor, and he says, “I will not do it,” his baptism and confirmation would depart from him, and he would be left as a SON OF PERDITION.

    Discourse By President Brigham Young, the Priesthood to Dictate in Temporal As Well As Spiritual Things-Inconsistency of An Equal Division of Property-Let Apostates Alone

    Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 12:, p.56
    Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, June 16th, 1867.

    The Lord is merciful, but, when He comes to His Kingdom on the earth, He will banish traitors from His presence, and they will be sons of perdition. Every apostate who ever received this gospel in faith, and had the spirit of it, will have to repent in sackcloth and ashes, and sacrifice all he possesses, or be a SON OF PERDITION”

    I also find it interesting that LDS so willing dismiss the things written in the J of D, siince it was being written in a time when the Prophets were claiming actual conversations with God. The most I can get from what Hinckley has said, he just gets the still small voice like anyone else.

    “To be a “Son of Perdition” under Mormon doctrine, you have to deny God while KNOWING that He actually exists and what He wants.”

    Seth if the above definition is true, than there is no such thing as a SoP except for maybe Joseph Smith and The Prophets of the OT. and runs contrary to what BY said above.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 15, 2007 @ 5:01 pm |Reply

  155. Coventry,
    For whatever reason you wish to condemn yourself, you cannot say modern revelation universally wishes your damnation. Between Spencer W. Kimball and Joseph Fielding Smith we have the following from The Miracle of Forgiveness:

    “Sin Against the Holy Ghost
    The sins unto death may be thought of as somewhat difficult to define and limit with precision. From the words of Joseph Smith quoted above we note that “. . . many apostates of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” will fall into this category. We cannot definitely identify them individually since it is impossible for us to know the extent of their knowledge, the depth of their enlightenment, and the sureness of their testimonies before their fall.

    When one has received the Holy Ghost he has a companion who will constantly warn and teach and inspire him. (See Moro. 10:5.) If not driven away through uncleanness or other persistent wickedness the Holy Ghost will always bear increasing witness to gospel truth. The potency of his influence is emphasized in this explanation by President Joseph Fielding Smith:
    The reason blasphemy against the Son of God may be forgiven, even if the Son be made manifest in a vision or a dream, is that such manifestation does not impress the soul as deeply as does the testimony of the Holy Ghost. The influence of the Holy Ghost is spirit speaking to spirit, and the indelible impression is one that brings conversion and conviction to the soul as no other influence can. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth with a positiveness wherein there is no doubt and therefore is far more impressive than a vision given to the eye. 4

    The depth and durability of impressions made by “spirit speaking to spirit” perhaps explains the Lord’s statement to Thomas after his resurrection: “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29.) Here was the reference to the surer witness. The eyes can be deceived, as can the other physical senses, but the testimony of the Holy Ghost is certain.

    The sin against the Holy Ghost requires such knowledge that it is manifestly impossible for the rank and file to commit such a sin. Comparatively few Church members will commit murder wherein they shed innocent blood, and we hope only few will deny the Holy Ghost.”

    While Brigham’s words are important, they don’t represent our present understanding of the doctrine as well as the quote above. Such is the manner of a church with a doctrine of continuing revelation.

    Comment by John C. — November 15, 2007 @ 5:14 pm |Reply

  156. I do not condemn myself as I don’t believe any of it to be anything other than the ranting of Man.

    If you read my post the SoP was more a side note not the main point. It was more about finding a higher level of enlightenment. One not based on fear of punishment or hope of a reward.

    I think Religion potentially has its value and place. Just about every TBM on here professes that without the Church they would most likely be these awful people with no moral compass. You have story after story of how religion has worked as a catalyst for someone to quit a potentially self destructive behavior. That is great. The problem I have is it then just teaches them to trade one dependency for another, a new stopping place on their way to personal growth and inner peace, enlightenment whatever cliché you want to use. I think they are all ways to describe being “Mentally and Emotionally Healthy”

    I would use this analogy.

    When someone undertakes the process of seeing a therapist, the idea is that they will eventually learn and develop the tools so they no longer need the therapist. Any therapist that would have their patients develop a dependency on them is doing that patient an extreme disservice. I feel that is what religion in affect does, by using fear and guilt promises of reward to make people dependent on their particular religion, stunting their emotional and mental growth in the process.

    I think we can teach moral and values in many ways.

    I think religion needs to move from Tolerance to Acceptance.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 15, 2007 @ 6:06 pm |Reply

  157. I don’t have a clue want your last sentence means.

    That said, I don’t have a problem with your analogy. I do believe that one of the things taught in all Christian belief (including Mormon belief) is total reliance on God. For that matter, this seems to be a common feature of all salvation religions. If that disturbs you, I can see why you would choose to opt out. For me, it is one of the paradoxes that makes the gospel interesting and ennobling. C’est la vie.

    Comment by John C. — November 15, 2007 @ 9:10 pm |Reply

  158. Tolerance vs Acceptance.

    I wrote in an earlier post

    “I know that the word tolerance is thrown around a lot in religious faith circles, that the Churches teach tolerance, isn’t that what Christ was about? I think we need to look at the word acceptance. Interestingly enough as I happened to be contemplating this issue, I turned my satellite radio to the “Patriot” channel; the commentator made a comment and went on to define the two. He said tolerance is when the belief system of the majority allows those in the minority to have and practice their beliefs, He said acceptance is when he considered them as equal and that their beliefs are as valid as his. As a Christian he further stated he had tolerance rather than acceptance because there is no way any good Christian could possibly accept homosexuality as being equal.”

    I really think to make the world a better place, that religions should accept others beliefs to be just as valid as their own. Claims of absolute truth are harmful and dangerous. Bottom line any faith based belief system can’t and shouldn’t be argued or accepted as anything other than a persons philosophical views. This debate that has been going on with Brad for example is ridiculous. The Bible has no historical evidence to back it as God’s word other than itself. You all have to accept it on faith. How can ones Faith be any more valid than another’s? None of your religions make more or less sense than the other. They all share improbable stories that can’t be proven.

    I think once everyone accepts that what all of us have is a “Belief” no one really knows what happens when we die. I can respect you a lot more when you come to me in those terms. When you say you “KNOW WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT” you are being dishonest. You know that you have had feelings and validating experiences that have strengthened your belief. Yes it could mean that you have the truth, but realizing that I have had the same feelings confirming my truth and Muslims and Christians of other denominations make the same claims to witness and feeling as you do. With very few exceptions most people continue to belief and receive witness of the Church or culture they were brought up in. How can someone be so arrogant to think that their witness is the real one and that anyone else that has a witness contrary to their belief is a result of deception, imitation or part truth?

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 15, 2007 @ 9:50 pm |Reply

  159. Coventry,

    That is what they are taught to do. It is not intentional, it is a conditioned response…but of course you know that.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 15, 2007 @ 10:51 pm |Reply

  160. Coventry and Brick (Sorry, couldn’t resist),

    I understand both sides quite well, I think. There are certain things that I have felt so strongly and in such unexplainable ways that I feel comfortable saying that I “know” them. However, I also understand that I still “see through a glass darkly” – so I understand that I don’t know them perfectly, and I am open to them changing if I gain further light and knowledge.

    I know that seems contradictory and counter-intuitive to many, and I also know that it probably boils down to semantics when you get to the linguistics of it all, but I also understand that we follow what we believe and follow diligently what we think we know. As Martin Luther King once said (paraphrasing), “A life that does not include something worth dying for is not worth living;” as John, the Revelator, said, “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:15-16). I understand how frightening that is to many, including me, given the natural tendency to abuse convictions, but it is what it is – one of the central cunundrums of Christianity – finding a personal balance between personal conviction and communal charity. I believe, by and large, both in theology and in practice, Mormons do a very good job of this – even with our own tendency to focus too much on the outward appearance of others.

    Coventry, based on what I see of you here, you definitely are not a Son of Perdition that way we understand it. Brigham Young did great and wonderful things for the Church, and I sustain him as a Prophet (largely because I’m not sure there was another “Lion of the Lord” alive who could have shepherded the Church through such hellish times), but he believed a lot of things that we now view as extra-doctrinal. I kind of wish we believed in infallible Prophets, but I am much more glad that we don’t.

    (FWIW, I am FAR more bothered by the charge of “worshipping” our Prophets than by just about any other anti-Mormon claim, simply because our willingness to let go of their personal opinions as we learn and grow past them is SO different than the Protestant insistence on accepting the words of Peter, James, John, Paul and other ancient prophets as the absolute, inerrant, infallible word of God. If anyone in Christianity “worships” religious leaders in practical way, it is the evangelical mainstream. The ignorant claim against us is belied by their unquestioning acceptance of what they are told, and it just drives me nuts.)

    Comment by Ray — November 15, 2007 @ 11:24 pm |Reply

  161. Ray

    A perfect example of what I am talking about is Manaens story and the responses to it

    “That is beautiful, manaen. Thank you so much for sharing it”

    To me manaen’s story is both sad and tragic. The fact that the Church and his up bringing could make him feels so desperate to the point of suicide. The fact that he felt so worthless and pained is not a testament to truth. It is a testament to how powerful a tool such as indoctrination is. I have known Members that have actually attempted suicide for the same reasons. It is tragic that they could be broken down to that level. What is really tragic is they turn back to that same abuse just as a battered wife does when she goes back to her abusive husband, she really believes she deserved it. It is very dysfunctional and unhealthy. The Churches I love you is no different than the husband professing his love after the abuse. Of course the Church received him with open arms, he gave them the power to punish and have control, you only see the ugly side and the rejection when you actually leave and they know you are truly done. Yet the door is always open conditionally!

    I hesitated to post this as I worried about coming across insensitive but this story saddened me deeply. I am glad that Manaen did not harm himself and currently feels good and has confidence and love for self I just hope that the growth continues. Leaving the Church is extremely hard and is emotionally painful; I know it was for me. I am just glad I hadn’t committed serious sins as the guilt would have probably stopped my process of self discovery and awareness, such a wonderful freeing experience. Some times things have to get worse before they get better but in the end it is well worth it. It is hard not to share with others, but if in doing so I have offended or come across insensitive that is not my intent. I just want everyone to have what I have. I guess that makes us the same in that regard.

    Comment by CoventryRM — November 16, 2007 @ 12:03 am |Reply

  162. Coventry,

    I don’t think you are being insensitive at all. In fact I think you are being just the opposite. You are showing concern for the person (in this case manaen) and not on his status in the church. I feel that the person is much more valuable than his status in any organization. This is also one of the things I dislike with organized religion.

    Comment by Bishop Rick — November 16, 2007 @ 12:09 am |Reply

  163. Agreed,

    Comment by SkiUtah — November 17, 2007 @ 8:51 am |Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: