The Truth about Mormons

[JakeStarkey]

The term 'Mormon' is being used very loosely here. The Latter Day Saints are only the major denomination in Mormonism. Anyone who believes Joseph Smith as the prophet who brings the Restoration of the gospel to the latter-days is a Mormon -- whether LDS, FLDS, Strangite, Hedrickite, Temple Lot, etc.

The argument among the Mormons is 'who has the authority from Joseph Smith.' All the sects claim it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not going to let you cherry pick something you have not read. You can go to Amazon.com: In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (9781560850854): Todd Compton: Books and read some of the thirty-five reviews.

To be honest, I don't care about the reviews. I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on. I am mildy interested in hearing what it says about how old his wives were and what testimonials are given by the wives or parents of the wives. Also quotes from Emma or Joseph on the matter would be nice.

But if you don't want to quote passages from the book then I will have to dismiss it and your references to it. Have you read it yourself?

Then email Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventies and ask what he thinks of Compton and your general unwillingness to study but readiness to pontificate.

Your unwillingness to read good secondary works by acclaimed LDS historians using primary sources disqualifies you further as relevant on the subject of Joseph, polygamy, etc.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Truth, the doctrine has been 'to become as gods with your own kingdoms and goddesses' since 1844 until President Hinckley weasled in the media about that some years ago.

Of course, I've never denied that. You read my statement wrong.

Any objective research will document the as God once was, man is, and is God is, man may become.

Just because I said we don't become gods at resurrection doesn't mean we can't become gods later. You are just not understanding the timeline of events and when they are said to happen.

How amazing that in fifty years "man to God" and "Joseph had sex with his women" have gone out the window, and now many deny what history has recorded.

Nothing went out the window. None of that is denied. It is still doctrine. It is less focused on than in years passed but nothing has changed in those regards.

 

[Truthspeaker]

The term 'Mormon' is being used very loosely here. The Latter Day Saints are only the major denomination in Mormonism. Anyone who believes Joseph Smith as the prophet who brings the Restoration of the gospel to the latter-days is a Mormon -- whether LDS, FLDS, Strangite, Hedrickite, Temple Lot, etc.

The argument among the Mormons is 'who has the authority from Joseph Smith.' All the sects claim it.

The main problem with this statement is that "Mormons" is just a nickname given to us by non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has the proper documentation to show there was no break in the line of authority. We are the original, not the branch. The authority is not "from Joseph Smith" either. It is from Jesus Christ, to Peter, James, and John, passed down to Joseph and to the 12 modern day apostles. After Joseph's death, the apostleship still held the authority of government of the church. Breakaways clearly have no authority.

Nicknames can be ignorantly applied to anyone. But the genuine article remains the same. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not "The Mormon Church."

 

[Truthspeaker]

I am not going to let you cherry pick something you have not read. You can go to Amazon.com: In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (9781560850854): Todd Compton: Books and read some of the thirty-five reviews.

To be honest, I don't care about the reviews. I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on. I am mildy interested in hearing what it says about how old his wives were and what testimonials are given by the wives or parents of the wives. Also quotes from Emma or Joseph on the matter would be nice.

But if you don't want to quote passages from the book then I will have to dismiss it and your references to it. Have you read it yourself?

Then email Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventies and ask what he thinks of Compton and your general unwillingness to study but readiness to pontificate.

Your unwillingness to read good secondary works by acclaimed LDS historians using primary sources disqualifies you further as relevant on the subject of Joseph, polygamy, etc.

I said I would read anything put before me. It seems you are the one who hasn't read the book. All you seem to have done is read the reviews.

show me some quotes from the book and we can discuss them. I'm not going anywhere. But I ain't shelling out 30 bucks for a book that is irrelevant to my faith.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then I did read you wrong, and I apologize. You are going to use the eternal progression route for becoming gods. Better go back and read B. McConkie; his views depart radically from yours. And, if you have the time, once upon a time a guy by the name of Hartman Rector, a convert who became a Seventy when only one general quorum of them existed at general authority level, preached exactly what I think you believe. McConkie, who I think was in the Seventy with him at the time, diagreed with him big time. So did McConkie's boss, Joseph Fielding Smith.

You think I know a bit about Mormonism? You need to meet Jeff Needle of San Diego, the Jewish book editor of the Association of Mormon Letters online. I have never met a better read individual on Mormonism than him, and that goes for Leonard Arrington or Mike Quinn or Louis Midgley. Needle is a funy, funny guy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To be honest, I don't care about the reviews. I'm also not going to buy the book because it's not worth spending money on. I am mildy interested in hearing what it says about how old his wives were and what testimonials are given by the wives or parents of the wives. Also quotes from Emma or Joseph on the matter would be nice.

But if you don't want to quote passages from the book then I will have to dismiss it and your references to it. Have you read it yourself?

Then email Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventies and ask what he thinks of Compton and your general unwillingness to study but readiness to pontificate.

Your unwillingness to read good secondary works by acclaimed LDS historians using primary sources disqualifies you further as relevant on the subject of Joseph, polygamy, etc.

I said I would read anything put before me. It seems you are the one who hasn't read the book. All you seem to have done is read the reviews.

show me some quotes from the book and we can discuss them. I'm not going anywhere. But I ain't shelling out 30 bucks for a book that is irrelevant to my faith.

Not only did I read the book, I reviewed it. But a true scholar and student of history knows the literature, and clearly you don't. We can leave it at that for what it is worth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The term 'Mormon' is being used very loosely here. The Latter Day Saints are only the major denomination in Mormonism. Anyone who believes Joseph Smith as the prophet who brings the Restoration of the gospel to the latter-days is a Mormon -- whether LDS, FLDS, Strangite, Hedrickite, Temple Lot, etc.

The argument among the Mormons is 'who has the authority from Joseph Smith.' All the sects claim it.

The main problem with this statement is that "Mormons" is just a nickname given to us by non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has the proper documentation to show there was no break in the line of authority. We are the original, not the branch. The authority is not "from Joseph Smith" either. It is from Jesus Christ, to Peter, James, and John, passed down to Joseph and to the 12 modern day apostles. After Joseph's death, the apostleship still held the authority of government of the church. Breakaways clearly have no authority.

Nicknames can be ignorantly applied to anyone. But the genuine article remains the same. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not "The Mormon Church."

Yes, I understand, you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And off the main page of Lds.org we find "Mormon Channel (-) Listen to Mormon Channel, the Church’s new 24-hour-a-day audio station featuring gospel-oriented programs, music, interviews, and much more. You can access the station through live Internet streaming, podcasts, and iPhone applications, as well as on HD radio."

 

[Truthspeaker]

Then I did read you wrong, and I apologize. You are going to use the eternal progression route for becoming gods. Better go back and read B. McConkie; his views depart radically from yours. And, if you have the time, once upon a time a guy by the name of Hartman Rector, a convert who became a Seventy when only one general quorum of them existed at general authority level, preached exactly what I think you believe. McConkie, who I think was in the Seventy with him at the time, diagreed with him big time. So did McConkie's boss, Joseph Fielding Smith.

You think I know a bit about Mormonism? You need to meet Jeff Needle of San Diego, the Jewish book editor of the Association of Mormon Letters online. I have never met a better read individual on Mormonism than him, and that goes for Leonard Arrington or Mike Quinn or Louis Midgley. Needle is a funy, funny guy.

No I don't think you do know much about Mormonism at all. You think you do but you are only getting the spoonfed anti-mormon version of it.

What Bruce R. McKonkie was speaking about in "Mormon Doctrine" is the same thing we believe in today. You also aren't taking the proper context of my statements in answering 3rd party inquiring minds on this thread. As to becoming a god. xsited was asking me if we just instantly become gods at the ressurection. There is so much more to it than that though.
So assuming you can handle stronger meat, I will explain. The resurrection date of each individual is not the same. yes there is 1 great big resurrection day prior to the millenial reign following Jesus' second coming. But there will be and have been many people resurrected at earlier times. Since we believe in eternal progression it has also been revealed in the doctrine and covenants that some of our progenitors have already become gods since they have been working at it for many millenia i.e. Adam.

Our turns will come if we meet the criteria. And let there be no mistake. XSITED was asking if we(mormons) become gods when we die and are resurrected. That is why I said no, we don't become gods at the snap of a finger and no because it's not decided who will receive exaltation based on what church you belong to. The criteria for becoming a god involves being pure in heart and willing to obey Gods commandments long after this life is over. It's not just Mormons.

do you comprehend the complex nature of my answer? I assume you do. This is not pontificating. This is logical reasoning. There IS no dogma in our church because dogma by nature is not to be questioned and we invite more scrutiny and questioning of our doctrine than any other religion. Therefore by definition we have no dogmas.

 

[Truthspeaker]

Then email Marlin K. Jensen of the Seventies and ask what he thinks of Compton and your general unwillingness to study but readiness to pontificate.

Your unwillingness to read good secondary works by acclaimed LDS historians using primary sources disqualifies you further as relevant on the subject of Joseph, polygamy, etc.

I said I would read anything put before me. It seems you are the one who hasn't read the book. All you seem to have done is read the reviews.

show me some quotes from the book and we can discuss them. I'm not going anywhere. But I ain't shelling out 30 bucks for a book that is irrelevant to my faith.

Not only did I read the book, I reviewed it. But a true scholar and student of history knows the literature, and clearly you don't. We can leave it at that for what it is worth.

A true scholar of the history of the church has read all volumes of "The History of the Church", all the Standard works, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith." "The joseph smith papers" "discourses of the prophet Brigham Young", "Lehi in the Desert & The World of the Jaredites" by Hugh Nibley, "An Ancient American Setting for The Book of Mormon", by John L. Sorenson, "Joseph Smith & The Restoration" , "The Maya" by Michael D. Coe and countless articles of science and history.

This one book you speak of which gives at least fairly accurate details of the lives of Josephs wives would mean little more to me than journal reading. There is nothing in the claims of the reviews that I haven't heard before. What were the mistakes and sins Joseph was guilty of? It is irrelevant because all humans sin. Well maybe not entirely irrelevant. Some sins he is accused of he is not guilty of other than by court of public opinion, which court is not the foundation of my faith. My foundation comes from Christ and private meditation to commune with God for my answers.

Scientific evidences, historical confirmations and miracle witnesses are just bonuses. the addition or subraction of which, has no effect on my faith.

That is why I won't pay 30 bucks to buy an overpriced book. I'd rather take my kids fishing.

 

[Truthspeaker]

The term 'Mormon' is being used very loosely here. The Latter Day Saints are only the major denomination in Mormonism. Anyone who believes Joseph Smith as the prophet who brings the Restoration of the gospel to the latter-days is a Mormon -- whether LDS, FLDS, Strangite, Hedrickite, Temple Lot, etc.

The argument among the Mormons is 'who has the authority from Joseph Smith.' All the sects claim it.

The main problem with this statement is that "Mormons" is just a nickname given to us by non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has the proper documentation to show there was no break in the line of authority. We are the original, not the branch. The authority is not "from Joseph Smith" either. It is from Jesus Christ, to Peter, James, and John, passed down to Joseph and to the 12 modern day apostles. After Joseph's death, the apostleship still held the authority of government of the church. Breakaways clearly have no authority.

Nicknames can be ignorantly applied to anyone. But the genuine article remains the same. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not "The Mormon Church."

Yes, I understand, you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And off the main page of Lds.org we find "Mormon Channel (-) Listen to Mormon Channel, the Church’s new 24-hour-a-day audio station featuring gospel-oriented programs, music, interviews, and much more. You can access the station through live Internet streaming, podcasts, and iPhone applications, as well as on HD radio."

Cmon now Jake,
You're smart enough to know that "Mormon" can still be used to familiarize ourselves with outside parties. We might as well keep the nickname and try to make it look good as long as others are trying to make it look bad.

By the way I noticed 8-ball said thank you for your post. He reminds of that little guy who stands behind the gang of bullies and talks tough. He's got his hat on sideways and looks at you like he's tough and says "Yeah!" after the bully says something.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I said I would read anything put before me. It seems you are the one who hasn't read the book. All you seem to have done is read the reviews.

show me some quotes from the book and we can discuss them. I'm not going anywhere. But I ain't shelling out 30 bucks for a book that is irrelevant to my faith.

Not only did I read the book, I reviewed it. But a true scholar and student of history knows the literature, and clearly you don't. We can leave it at that for what it is worth.

A true scholar of the history of the church has read all volumes of "The History of the Church", all the Standard works, "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith." "The joseph smith papers" "discourses of the prophet Brigham Young", "Lehi in the Desert & The World of the Jaredites" by Hugh Nibley, "An Ancient American Setting for The Book of Mormon", by John L. Sorenson, "Joseph Smith & The Restoration" , "The Maya" by Michael D. Coe and countless articles of science and history.

This one book you speak of which gives at least fairly accurate details of the lives of Josephs wives would mean little more to me than journal reading. There is nothing in the claims of the reviews that I haven't heard before. What were the mistakes and sins Joseph was guilty of? It is irrelevant because all humans sin. Well maybe not entirely irrelevant. Some sins he is accused of he is not guilty of other than by court of public opinion, which court is not the foundation of my faith. My foundation comes from Christ and private meditation to commune with God for my answers.

Scientific evidences, historical confirmations and miracle witnesses are just bonuses. the addition or subraction of which, has no effect on my faith.

That is why I won't pay 30 bucks to buy an overpriced book. I'd rather take my kids fishing.

Todd's book is in your stake library, probably, and if not, certainly in the local library. The reading list you have is milk for the beginner, absolutely necessary, but only the milk. Challenge yourself to grow, for the glory of God is to bring forth the development of man. Go for it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then I did read you wrong, and I apologize. You are going to use the eternal progression route for becoming gods. Better go back and read B. McConkie; his views depart radically from yours. And, if you have the time, once upon a time a guy by the name of Hartman Rector, a convert who became a Seventy when only one general quorum of them existed at general authority level, preached exactly what I think you believe. McConkie, who I think was in the Seventy with him at the time, diagreed with him big time. So did McConkie's boss, Joseph Fielding Smith.

You think I know a bit about Mormonism? You need to meet Jeff Needle of San Diego, the Jewish book editor of the Association of Mormon Letters online. I have never met a better read individual on Mormonism than him, and that goes for Leonard Arrington or Mike Quinn or Louis Midgley. Needle is a funy, funny guy.

No I don't think you do know much about Mormonism at all. You think you do but you are only getting the spoonfed anti-mormon version of it.

What Bruce R. McKonkie was speaking about in "Mormon Doctrine" is the same thing we believe in today. You also aren't taking the proper context of my statements in answering 3rd party inquiring minds on this thread. As to becoming a god. xsited was asking me if we just instantly become gods at the ressurection. There is so much more to it than that though.
So assuming you can handle stronger meat, I will explain. The resurrection date of each individual is not the same. yes there is 1 great big resurrection day prior to the millenial reign following Jesus' second coming. But there will be and have been many people resurrected at earlier times. Since we believe in eternal progression it has also been revealed in the doctrine and covenants that some of our progenitors have already become gods since they have been working at it for many millenia i.e. Adam.

Our turns will come if we meet the criteria. And let there be no mistake. XSITED was asking if we(mormons) become gods when we die and are resurrected. That is why I said no, we don't become gods at the snap of a finger and no because it's not decided who will receive exaltation based on what church you belong to. The criteria for becoming a god involves being pure in heart and willing to obey Gods commandments long after this life is over. It's not just Mormons.

do you comprehend the complex nature of my answer? I assume you do. This is not pontificating. This is logical reasoning. There IS no dogma in our church because dogma by nature is not to be questioned and we invite more scrutiny and questioning of our doctrine than any other religion. Therefore by definition we have no dogmas.

Ah, neophyte, you have stumbled several times already, but that's OK because you are trying to move forward with a willing heart if an unsteady stride. I will show you how to lengthen your stride. I notice your unorthodox understanding of grace and election informs your theory of god development.

You are wise to stay away from dogma because Joseph Smith, John Taylor, Brigham Young, and Joseph F. Smith abounded in it. It's hard to explain doctrines of the time such as "Adam-God", "Blood Atonement", "Adoption," "Royal Abrahamic Priesthood", and the denial of Priestood Blessings to the Nego. What find funny is that General Authorities today pretend as they as dave authority to say that what Brigham Young gave doctrine really wasn't doctrine. If Elder Packer had made such a statement back then, Brigham Young would sent him to supervise the water in the Green River. You will learn.

 

[Eightball]

The main problem with this statement is that "Mormons" is just a nickname given to us by non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has the proper documentation to show there was no break in the line of authority. We are the original, not the branch. The authority is not "from Joseph Smith" either. It is from Jesus Christ, to Peter, James, and John, passed down to Joseph and to the 12 modern day apostles. After Joseph's death, the apostleship still held the authority of government of the church. Breakaways clearly have no authority.

Nicknames can be ignorantly applied to anyone. But the genuine article remains the same. the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Not "The Mormon Church."

Yes, I understand, you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And off the main page of Lds.org we find "Mormon Channel (-) Listen to Mormon Channel, the Church’s new 24-hour-a-day audio station featuring gospel-oriented programs, music, interviews, and much more. You can access the station through live Internet streaming, podcasts, and iPhone applications, as well as on HD radio."

Cmon now Jake,
You're smart enough to know that "Mormon" can still be used to familiarize ourselves with outside parties. We might as well keep the nickname and try to make it look good as long as others are trying to make it look bad.

By the way I noticed 8-ball said thank you for your post. He reminds of that little guy who stands behind the gang of bullies and talks tough. He's got his hat on sideways and looks at you like he's tough and says "Yeah!" after the bully says something.

Truthspeaker: Your so full of it! Jake or anyone can see that my posts have challenged you to the core of your anti-biblical doctrine, and a "thanks" to Jake is the same as saying, "Job well done.".

Your shooting out barbs like a drowning man without a life jacket.

You compliment Avatar, and Avatar compliments you, but when I do it, it's hiding behind the big old bully's.

Your just plain full of it, and making yourself look pretty lame, as a Mormon spokesman.

Jake has presented you with a fist-full of facts, yes facts for you to chew on, digest, and reply back with some rational, objective summations.

I've brought up a fistfull of facts that reveal some real problems with your belief system, and you've blown me off, with, "I answered that 8-ball!". Bull, to that. What you have done is used poor hermenutics of the bible as Avatar does, pick and pulling references out of context to support your anti-Christ/biblical religion. You both have been called on the "'carpet" for using "induction" methodology when citing the bible.

You ignore all historical data that isn't sanctioned by your church.......Basically, your fullfilling all the criteria of a cultist or cult member. You "must" stay in lock-step with the faith, based on a less than shakey foundation.

Saying I'm hiding behind anyone, just exposed you for what you are. A very uninformed, Mormon, who isn't willing to look beyond his church's official statements, and will brush aside his church's statements of the past when they become inconvenient to your present comfort zone or paradigm.

Your founder was a con man...........fully revealed in New York, and he created more friction with biblical Christian communitys as he led his followers West to Utah. He was willing to make up visions and all kinds of weird phenomena to keep absolute control over his minions/followers. Sadly, these folks were gullible, and that's just how cults prosper; with folks that want God to be their way, and not the way God has truly revealed Himself to man.

The "flesh" wars against the "Spirit". The flesh desires polygamous relationships, it wars against that which reveals sinful nature of fallen man..........

 

[JakeStarkey]

Eightball, all of that is true. However, the LDS church today is not the LDS church of 1850. Give grace here, I suggest. Remember that Paul had to struggle mightily with the sexual religious expressions of the Gentiles (Ashtaroth, etc) in bringing them into Christianity. And, my of my, Christianity today is not that of Paul and his buddies, for sure.

So, yeah, Truthspeaker is fairly ignorant of his religion, and Avatar is a whacko political Bircher who hides behind Mormonism. Yet I am not willing to judge the state of their souls, and I am sure you are not either. At least I hope not. I do wish they would play fair with the history and facts of their denomination. Remember it is only one of several hundred Mormon denominations.

 

[Avatar4321]

TS, if you get a chance to check out Elder Ballards commencement speech for the BYU graduates this summer. Good talk.

As for the accusers, I am who I am. Nothing less. Nothing more. I dont really care whether you believe me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mel Ballard is a good dude. And you should apply his teachings in your life. Give up whackos like Glenn Beck. Turn away from JBS leanings. Go lean on the Lord. Best of luck, Avatar. I am glad you are 'coming out' in public.

 

[Rubber Hoser]

As a casual observer, I must say that starkey and 8 ball have buried truthboy and avatar. But your all just arguing over something that was written by men. So you all look a little foolish.
And arguing over a word "mormon" is a dumb as those who argue over another word "marriage" (for gays).

 

[Eightball]

Eightball, all of that is true. However, the LDS church today is not the LDS church of 1850. Give grace here, I suggest. Remember that Paul had to struggle mightily with the sexual religious expressions of the Gentiles (Ashtaroth, etc) in bringing them into Christianity. And, my of my, Christianity today is not that of Paul and his buddies, for sure.

So, yeah, Truthspeaker is fairly ignorant of his religion, and Avatar is a whacko political Bircher who hides behind Mormonism. Yet I am not willing to judge the state of their souls, and I am sure you are not either. At least I hope not. I do wish they would play fair with the history and facts of their denomination. Remember it is only one of several hundred Mormon denominations.

Joe: There are "true" Christians involved in belief systems that are way off base. When I say, "True" I mean those that Jesus defines as "born from above" as He told the pharisee Nicodemus.

As for Truthspeaker's and Avatar's spiritual condition, that is not for me to determine. I do know, personally that many "born again" Christians with very nominal biblical background have joined the LDS church, thinking that it was "Christian", or biblical.

Romans Chapter 12 comes to mind as Paul's great "equalizer" or means of filtering out what is right and what is wrong.

Also, Romans 10:17 couldn't be clearer, as I've posted that verse in reply to our two resident Mormon apologists here on this thread so many times I can't count. Faith is not a "feeling", it is not a "vision" nor a "dream", that confirms a system of belief. Faith is placing trust in an objective reality. The bible has revealed the objective reality of Christ's birth, existence, ministry, which culminated in His crucifixion, burial, ressurrection, and ascension into heaven to sit at the right hand of God the Father.

I realize to harangue folks of a different belief system with evidences of the shakiness of their founding fathers, and their deeds, will only go so far. It takes a brave, bold, yet scarey "step" for a Mormon or folks involved in unbiblical religions to take a "stab" at considering that they may be following the wrong piper.

Again, I must stress, that Christians indeed can be involved in Mormonism/LDS, "if" they are "ignorant" of the main tenents of the bible; namely N.T. teachings.

I admire the Bereans for challenging even Paul the Apostle and going straight to their scriptures to "test" what He taught them. Paul was not insulted, but actually commended the Bereans for checking out his teaching to make sure he/Paul wasn't bringing a false message.
*******
Going to church doesn't mean a person is trully a Christian, nor does attending a very solid bible teaching church.

God works in mysterious ways, yet He is indeed consistent, for who He is, as He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
*******

 

[HUGGY]

The Truth about Mormons
are the lies from mormans