Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At that point, I think people should be warned not to fall into deception...hence Alpha's thread about what you really have to believe to be saved.
Kay, I'm not sure whether you realize it or not, but Alpha's thread makes it clear that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, accepts His Atonement, and believes He is the only path to salvation is saved and therefore a Christian. Now, that's exactly what Mormon's believe.
I didn't take the time to scroll through all of the posts in this thread to see if what I am posting has been posted yet, but here is a quick synopsis of the belief system of the LDS Church.
The Articles of Faith.The Articles of Faith
The Articles of Faith
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Hi Sarge,
I don't hate the LDS, but the more said here, the more confused I get.
You seem to claim that there are no secrets (or is it just no "dark" secrets) surrounding your faith.
But there ARE secrets, right?
Aren't there things that go on in the temple that non-members are not allowed to see or to even know about?
I have a trustworthy source (an active, "good" Mormon) who has told me of the existence of such things - his reason for the secrecy is that non-believers won't understand and that the secrets are kept to shield the religion from further discrimination.
Those are valid reasons, but until the secrets are exposed, the church will always be seen as something untrustworthy by outsiders.
It's one reason why Romney will be crucified in the press pretty soon.
He will eventually be pressed for the details about what goes on in the temple and with the prophet, and he will refuse to answer.
So what can you tell us about these "secret" temple rituals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigthirsty
Serg,
Interesting question. When I wrote that post I wasn't trying to impress upon anyone (at least consciencly.. i'm a bad speller) that LDS had something to hide. I was simply stating that you seem to know what you are talking about and its difficult to discern as much on an anonymous message board.
However, your question is still interesting and upon reflection maybe the term "up and up" was a freudian slip. It seems in general that there is (at least in my mind.. and I'm not saying there is.. just my opinion here) a bit of secrecy surrounding the mormon church. I've always been under the impression that non-mormons couldn't go into certain buildings etc. Again.. hearsay. I've spoken to people who were once mormon but won't talk about certain things as if bound to a code of silence. I don't push the subject. Again.. kinda secretive.
Also.. (again my opinion only) there is a perception that things change to suit new evidence (i.e. the intro to the mormon book).
All these things taken in aggregate (my opinion) might lead one (me) to think there could be things to hide..
Like I said earlier. I'm hoping to learn more (not because I'm interested in joining) but becasue I think its an interesting subject.
Like I said.. this is only me talking.. if others want to chime in (in a civil manner) then they are free to. I don't think there is a big dark secret but for right now I do think there are secretive things. I'm open to be influenced in another direction though..
I am going to answer both of you here. It seems the Temple is the common denominator related to secrecy. I can tell both of you much about the Temple, so here goes:
We are married in the Temple; however, a Temple marriage is for “all time and eternity.” We do not believe the marriage covenant ends with death.
We perform proxy baptisms and other ordinances for the dead, who did not have benefit of the Gospel in their own mortal lifetimes.
We do not discuss the precise ceremonies outside of the Temple, even among ourselves. We believe the precise nature of the ordinances performed in the Temple are sacred and may only be displayed within the sacred confines of the Temple. To do otherwise would debase the sacred nature of the ordinance. There are, however, former members who have taken great glee in revealing the specific nature of Temple ordinances. What they have done is between them and God.
Only members in good standing with the Church may enter the Temple. When my wife and I were sealed in the Temple, my mother could not attend. She never did forgive me for that, but since she was a Methodist and didn’t want me to become a Mormon, she shouldn’t have cared.
The origins of Gods Temple can be traced to well before the time of Christ.
For months and throughout many of these christian/mormon debate threads, people have brought up articles, quotes, comments, stories, books and dissertations made by mormon authors, many of whom presided in the church quorum over the years. Non-mormon folks used these printed pieces as evidence to disprove the church and its doctrine.
Accordingly, the mormon folks, in their defense, have claimed that these printed pieces were nothing more than the mere opinions of the people who wrote them and were not to be confused with actual church canon. Much of what was written could be refuted one way or another.
My question is: if these pieces did not reflect what was considered canon, scripture or anything even close to being factual, why then did the church presidency even consider authorizing them to be written in the first place? I know that anything pertaining to the church in printed, audio/visual or spoken form is to be fully authorized by the presidency before it is considered acceptable. (excepting of course, controversial materials printed by those outside of the church). I would think that anything printed that would be considered contrary to church canon would have been pre-empted by the leaders before ever being accepted. What do you folks think?
My question is: if these pieces did not reflect what was considered canon, scripture or anything even close to being factual, why then did the church presidency even consider authorizing them to be written in the first place? I know that anything pertaining to the church in printed, audio/visual or spoken form is to be fully authorized by the presidency before it is considered acceptable. (excepting of course, controversial materials printed by those outside of the church). I would think that anything printed that would be considered contrary to church canon would have been pre-empted by the leaders before ever being accepted. What do you folks think?
I know you think you know, but you are incorrect. I can write anything I want about the Church, and the Church has no control. If it were as you state, I and other LDS members would have to wait for Church permission before posting any comments here.
I made the statement that I believe Brigham Young made a stupid statement. Do you think I wrote to the Church for permission before expressing my opinion? One of my favorite lines comes from a former member of the 70 named J. Golden Kimball. Brother Kimball once made the following statement regarding the leaders of the Church. "Some are spares and some are flats." I don't think he asked the President for permission to say that.
I have seen leaders at all levels of the organization make some of the most incredible boneheaded mistakes I have ever seen, but I still believe God wanted them in their particular offices for His own reasons. I know they are men, and struggling through life just like the rest of us. God doesn’t transform them into super beings just because they are called to an office of leadership. If it were so, then Aaron would not have needed to speak for Moses.
There are many famous LDS authors who write about the Church, but their works are not of the Church. Their material belongs to them and their publisher. It is no different than any other religion. I attended a Jesuit University. There are hundreds of authors who write about Catholicism, but Catholic leadership does not necessarily approve every work, even those written by members of its clergy.
You know exactly what I meant. I was referring strictly to those who hold a position in the church hierarchy, meaning the quorum of the twelve and above. I just think that if someone in authority chooses to publish a piece regarding the church, that the presidency would carefully pour through the contents to make sure that it meets the church standards.
Of course, anyone, including yourself, can say what they want. Whether anyone wants to listen is another story.
You know exactly what I meant. I was referring strictly to those who hold a position in the church hierarchy, meaning the quorum of the twelve and above. I just think that if someone in authority chooses to publish a piece regarding the church, that the presidency would carefully pour through the contents to make sure that it meets the church standards.
Of course, anyone, including yourself, can say what they want. Whether anyone wants to listen is another story.
I beg to differ, sir; I did not know what you specifically meant. Many authors are in high Church leadership, but they have a right to publish their own opinion as long as they do not state they are speaking for the Church. No rights of thought are abrogated simply because someone joins the Church. It is my opinion that most of the non-LDS world suffers from Cecil B DeMille syndrome, when it comes to Prophets and Church leaders. Everything is “so saith the Lord God of Israel.” It makes great movies, but it isn’t reality.
I thought I had stated clearly but if I did not, then I stand corrected Sergeant. Forgive me.
I read a number of books years ago that were authorized by the church but no one ever said that I might need to pray about its content or be concerned about it possibly leading me a little astray. Many of the books appeared to line up with doctrine so no thought was ever given that it might be out of line. So what is a person to do under those circumstances?
Preterist, I want to stress to you my opening line above - that it was not about attacking you in any way - but to raise an issue ... a point.
There are many who will "get" the point.
There are those who will not.
Just like before.
Just like always.
Again, my Friend, I bid you peace.
RockyMtnr: I did not feel that I was being attacked personally. I understood your intent and was not offended. Your pont is well taken. There are many things "unchristian" about our churches. Some of those accusations are justified--in the same way questions concerning Mormonism's claim to Christianity are justified. Why are there so many denominations? They can't all be right. The divisions in the Church were the very things that gave Joseph Smith and his teachings the inroads he needed!
The only thing that separates the denominations is manmade--it does not come from God. IMO, it boils down to this--Christians are basically lazy! They sit in their little pews on Sunday and watch a baby being baptized and think, "Oh, how cute," but they cannot take their own Bibles and prove why this practice is performed. Others sit in their pews singing accapella because according to their leaders instruments should not be used in the worship service? Do they know why--apart from what they have been told?
You can lose your salvation. No, you can't lose your salvation. I got into a conversation about this very thing with a friend of mine who believes one can lose his salvation. Her response was basically--"I can't take the Bible and prove it, but my husband can. Go ask him."
Others listen to sermons about everyone flying away and leaving their clothes behind just before some evil "antichrist" takes over the world. Can they take their own Bibles and prove why they believe that? Others think one cannot be saved unless he speaks in tongues? Where is that in the Bible? Most don't know--their pastor told them that and it's good enough for them. Some think the wine in communion actually becomes the blood of Christ; others think it is simply present in some mysterious way; while still others think it is simply symbolic of Christ's blood!
Women can preach; women can't preach. Take a little wine for your stomach's sake; don't drink or you'll go to hell! Jesus died for the whole world and so the whole world will be saved; Jesus died only for His elect.
The list goes on and on and the Church at large is comfortable with all these divisions. We agree to disagree!
But if the Bible is the very Word of God as many in the Church would boldly profess, then it is never acceptable to agree to disagree about what God is saying to us in it. IMO again, people agree to disagree not because they do not want to argue their positions but because most CAN'T. Things will never change and the world will always see a divided Church and be repulsed by it unless and until individual Christians begin thinking and studying DILIGENTLY for themselves as good Bereans and stop opening their Bibles on Sundays only, their mouths wide open like little birds waiting to receive some little bit of nurishment someone else has chewed up for them. I don't say these things to be hateful or unkind but as an admonishment and as an encouragement.
I am sorry if I sound angry, but this is a sore spot with me. When I was in Germany in the military, some of my greatest times around the Word of God were in Bible study with Jehovah's Witnesses! Why? Because they were willing to discuss the Bible for hours! Yet when I would try to have a Bible study with those of like precious faith, I found their attention span to be extremely limited, and they had no interest in digging deeper.
Why do we believe what we believe and can we prove it to ourselves and others with God's Word alone!
As I stated before, we have had many Mormon missionaries in our home. Often they remark that they have appreciated the kindness we have shown them because many times people are rude and attacking. Our approach is ALWAYS "come now, let us reason together."
It is not enough to simply say, "I believe in God." Muslims believe in "God." Are they Christians? What are the attributes of one's god--is He the God of the Bible? If not, why must we accept such a god as OUR GOD? Let me say this again, in all respect and without any malice whatsoever--the God of Mormonism is not the God of the Bible. He was never a man as their doctrine proclaims and man will never be as He is. It is also not enough to simply say, "I believe in Christ and I believe He is the Son of God." In Mormonism, all people, including Jesus himself, are the progeny of a mother and father god. They are sent to inhabit the physical bodies of those born upon the earth. Jesus is our spirit brother and the brother of Satan--He is not the unique or only-begotten Son of God, i.e. Very God of very God!
Are we not justified in examining the meanings behind the words and terms that people use? When we have Mormons into our home, we make it very clear that when we speak of Jesus that we are speaking of a very different personage from their Jesus. The same is true of God.
Why do we have Mormons into our home? Because we love them. Others may call it hate. So be it. If I truly believe that there is only one way to be saved (and that through the shed blood of the true Christ, God in the flesh), I am compelled to share that with whosoever will listen. The irony is this--those who truly love Mormons and point out to them that they are heading in the wrong direction are often the very ones who are chastised by the "Church" for being unkind and unloving! Why? It goes back to the very beginning of my post. They have not taken the time to study the Scriptures thoroughly enough to recognize the authentic from the non-authentic.
What has the Church come to that She is no longer the light on the top of a hill and the salt of the earth? Why does She no longer stand out in the crowd but has become part of the crowd? How has She become so indistinct that others outside the faith can attach themselves to Her and few even notice or care and those who do care are rebuked for being unloving and unkind?
My heart would almost desire stern persecution upon us to purify the Church. "Renounce your Christ and step over the line or die!" How many who simply name the name of Christ would stand fast?
I will leave this discussion now. Every time I get involved in such debates, I get into trouble! For saying what I have said here (simply stating what Mormons believe in their doctrines), I was banned from Shawn Hannity's message board. I believe one of the moderators is Mormon. It seems the only fair game today is Christianity. But who will defend HER rights?
In the true Christ, Preterist
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
