- The Pilgrim

This is a basic tenet of the Mormon doctrine. It invites both an open heart and mind and assumes that men and women aspire to become more godlike by asking questions of God and exploring the answers they receive. It does not imply that they are gods or that they know all and have all the “right” answers. It does not imply that Mormons must blindly incorporate the dictates of their leaders into their beliefs nor does it imply that the leaders have perfect answers. It does imply that wisdom is fluid and evolving and therefore it is accepting that beliefs evolve and change. All humans are humans, not gods, and are therefore here to learn and grow regardless of their position. It seems you expect perfection of the Mormon church leaders according to YOUR logic. Perhaps your rigid stance and the passion of your hatred and intolerance blinds you to a part of the truth.

“…they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David. And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I shall do unto you? They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened. So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.” Matthew 20:31-34.

I wish you the best on your quest for knowledge and wisdom.

- JESUS

IF ANYONE PREACHES ANOTHER GOSPEL, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.

- APOSTLE PAUL

-JESUS

I would avoid getting into a long, drawn out debate with Manjar. I’ve tried to persuade these Emergent/Postmodern types a time or two, and they are just as happy as they can be to be rooted and grounded in their uncertainty about anything Biblical. They wear it like a badge. “The only thing I’m certain about is my uncertainty.” Hard to believe the same city (Minneapolis) that gave us John Piper has also spawned a guy like Doug Paggitt.

For Sphinx,

We are not “condemning” anyone. We are biblically literate enough to know that is forbidden (Matthew 7:1-5). However, we are to examine and scrutinize another’s actions and words according to the word of God (1st Corinthians 6:5). In fact, we are commanded to not allow anyone to join a church if they do not hold the doctrine of the true Christ (2nd John 1:9-11). We who are spiritual are to consider things in a spiritual manner, not according to the desires of man. For God is above man, and has higher standards than we do. this is why we strive so hard for the truth.

Just so we’re clear -

1. There apparently is a fatal difference between “physical” sex (a sperm fertilizing an egg) and “spiritual” sex (the Holy Ghost fertilizing an egg)?

2. Adam and Eve’s children really married each other? (Did you see those twins separated at birth in England whose marriage was just declared void? I would be furious! Not to mention grossed-out.)

3. That guy’s name is manjar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manjar), not marjar. I know, it’s not substantive, but continued typos just distract the reader.

4. Trite cliches such as “smoke and mirrors” should really only be used once per blog.

5. Is the word “half-truth” really even apply here? Or ever? It seems either oxymoronic, ironic, or patently false. Either something is true, or it is false. [Well, I don't really believe that. But I would think you would, living in a black-and-white fantasy land. I don't mean to come across with a tone of mockery, but I am so amused by the passion exhibited on both sides of the aisle. I am tempted to think that maybe I am a solipsist coming up with a delightful performance. No, I didn't go to Berkeley (though I am quite fond of the man behind the name). I just have a hard time thinking that anyone can be so passionate about that which is everso remote to the senses. Surely, man has evolved beyond the ape, and therefore can treasure that which transcends food, sleep, and shelter (see, e.g., Maslow's hierarchy). I personally love a good chateau petrus - not exactly a necessity. But to argue at the peril of damning the soul. Such bravado! Such self-sacrifice! Clearly, when Jesus threw the money changers from the temple, he knew how to cage his passions and did not give into the baser self. Without a doubt, the Son of God committed no error when condemning the Pharisees. But you, a man without the mantle, calling out those who have found religion for their perceived and actual falsehoods and inadequacies. It's been a while, but the last time I read the New Testament, Christ spent more time lifting up than tearing down. Even that loose cannon Paul spent more time speaking to his people than to the Pagans. Of course, we have only a couple of his letters. And if the Gospels weren't written so long after the fact, maybe we would have more examples of Jesus condemning the many other women caught in the act of adultery.]

On to other news - How does this blog rate in the blogosphere? Is traffic picking up?

I wish you the best on the “many other sites” you will grace. I may be going out on a limb, but I don’t think you’ll be missed by many here. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that some Mormons that read this blog are secretly celebrating your departure as well.

My point is that you rail against one segment of Christianity that you don’t like and yet fail to respond to the obvious failings of Christianity in general. Like the aforementioned issue of sex, the creation, Adam and Eve, who their kids procreated with, Moses ordering slaughter over and over (after “Thou Shalt Not Kill”), prophets and the mysterious disappearance of prophets and authority, the creation of the Bible and inclusion/exclusion of texts, the formation of dozens of Christian “churches” that all claim to show the “right” way, yet disagree as to the interpretation (see 2 Peter), etc, etc, etc.

You continuously set up red herrings, straw men, and use other logical fallacies in your arguments, while ignoring what may weaken your own view. I don’t care Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic, Baptist, Jew, Sunni, Shiite, Hindu, or etc. unless there is logic and reason to the argument. “Because I said so” isn’t sufficient. And an appeal to the Bible will never completely settle this. Why? Look at the myriad of religions who profess allegiance to the Bible and its precepts, and all are vastly different. Until you admit that the Bible has flaws, you’ve got the intellectual equivalent of your fingers stuck in your ears.

I love the Christian Bible, warts and all, but I’m not foolish enough to think it’s a pristine work, unaltered over the millenia, or that it includes all the writings that prophets have ever written. I freely admit I don’t have all the answers, and that’s part of my personal credo: I seek to embrace truth wherever I find it, be it a Biology text, in a work of art, and preacher’s sermon, and yes, the Bible. God is truth, and if he decided to come to my front door and tell me everything I ever thought was wrong, I certainly hope my mind is open enough to accept that. After all, once upon a time some very intelligent Pharisees weren’t able to accept that. And until these message boards can find the intellectual honesty to admit all is not known, and that there are flaws in current religious thought, I’m through posting here. There are many other sites where religious adherents can discuss and debate honestly.

And as always, I welcome your comments (the relentless, incessant, and constant condescending insults and all). I think the undecided reasonable reader can make a much better informed decision now.

1. God the Father is flesh and blood like us.

I quote the CURRENT source of President Gordon B. Hinckley: “I said, ‘Of course God is a spirit, and so are you in the combination of spirit and body that makes of you a living being, and so am I.’ Each of us is a dual being of spiritual entity and physical entity.”

2. God, a biological being of flesh and spirit, had children: Jesus, Satan, and all of us.

I quote the CURRENT source of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles [Jan 2000] as posted on lds.org: “We solemnly testify that His life, which is central to all human history, neither began in Bethlehem nor concluded on Calvary. He was the Firstborn of the Father, the Only Begotten Son in the flesh, the Redeemer of the world.”

…and from the CURRENT source of lds.org itself: “The Creation is an integral part of Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation. It gives each of us the opportunity to come to the earth, where we receive a physical body and exercise our agency. In the premortal Council of the Gods, the following declaration was made: “We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them”

3. Like us, Mary is a child of the flesh and spirit God who was given the privilage of a mortal body.

I quote the CURRENT source of lds.org: “God’s children have power to choose; they had this ability even before they were born. In the premortal life, Heavenly Father presented His plan, which included the principle of agency. Lucifer rebelled and “sought to destroy the agency of man” (Moses 4:3). As a result, Lucifer and all those who followed him were denied the privilege of receiving a mortal body. All who have been or will be born on earth chose to follow Heavenly Father’s plan.”

4. Mary is not a daughter of God as in Creator and Created. She is LITERALLY the daughter of God just like your daughter is.

I quote the CURRENT source of the First Presidency, “The Origin of Man,” Ensign, Feb 2002: “All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity.”

5. So think about what that means…. …how did Mary, the “literal daughter” of God, conceive a son?

Amen, brother! I look at it this way: if your child is about to run out into the street, and a truck is bearing down on him, are you just going to say, “Well, you know, he’s having so much fun, and he’s enjoying what he’s doing. I think I’ll just let him get run over.” Or do you run out, yelling and screaming, yanking him out of the way, and putting such a fear of cars in him that he would never want to run out into the street ever again?

Which is true love?

When JWs and Mormons change one doctrine (such as the virgin birth) that doesn’t make sense to them, there is a ripple effect throughout the Bible. The unintended consequence is that they no longer have the true Jesus or the true Gospel, and they no longer have eternal life.

Hatred for Mormons says we can all get along and it’s not that important. True concern for their eternity and love demands that we speak boldly against their false doctrines.

Good post.

Bill

They have not recanted their doctrine on the above topic. They just kind of ignore it and hope no one will notice.

As one of Reformation Nation’s instant celebrities… this horrific false doctrine has left me… without words.

…was any of this ever recanted? Did any of these men correct themselves? Has Mormonism officially spoken out in detail against these statements? If a member of your church (even a handful of founders) speaks heresy, I would think that you are obligated as a church to loudly reject it. Silence is tolerance.

Jake, this is why we attack Mormonism (We don’t attack Mormons personally, but the teachings of the LDS leaders). And you have to admit that Pilgrim was right when he said, “You guys will use every one of these prophet’s teachings on things you like, but as soon as it gets sticky, (like the doctrine we’re discussing) all of a sudden you back-peddle away and claim it’s not doctrine. For example, you guys will quote JOD all day long… that is until it says something that is detrimental to your church. Then you claim “IT’S NOT DOCTRINE!” You cannot have it both ways.”

It wasn’t as though ONE person somewhere in the LDS church said these things. And they weren’t just said “off the cuff.” Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, and other early Mormon leaders all taught this FROM THEIR PULPITS. But Mormons will say it was never “official doctrine.” These men were the PRESIDENTS/PROPHETS of the early LDS church. Do you think the people didn’t believe this to be “official doctrine”? Do you think that when people heard the words of the prophet/president they were taken to be anything less than the “word of God”?

And while you can make the argument that there are some preachers today who do say things that aren’t true, you have to keep one distinction in mind. We do not look to these men as having the final authority over the Scriptures. We do not hold them to the same position Mormons hold Young/Pratt/Hinckley. In other words, Young/Pratt/Hinckley all claimed to be speaking for God. My pastor doesn’t. That’s the difference here.

And Jake, the reason we are responding as we are is for this reason: if you knew a friend who was about to marry someone, or go into a business with someone, and it was going to be a life-shattering mistake, wouldn’t you do everything you could to try and warn them? That’s what we are doing here. However, we are trying to keep you from making a mistake that will jeopardize your eternal soul. We want you to know the true God, and Christ whom He sent. And you will not find them in the LDS church.

Now whether or not these are just some opinions, let’s see what Brigham Young says about his own teachings: “What man or woman on the earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens?“( Journal of Discourses Volume 12 Page 127)

Oh and, he also said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually.” (Journal of Discourses Volume 13 Page 95).

So see, when BY teaches a heretical doctrine, it’s not just his opinion, it’s LDS doctrine.

And furthermore, why would anyone want to follow someone who spoke such blasphemy. You obviously think that this doctrine is wrong or you wouldn’t be trying to distance yourself form it. Why do you accept anything else BY says?

To answer who is better qualified to tell others about your beliefs, I’d have to say me (surprised?). Because I have studied Mormonism without LDS indoctrination. I have studied the beginnings and early growth of LDS not just what they want me to know today; the new and improved polished LDS. You only receive what LDS dispenses, I look at the whole picture.

So, what is BY? When he teaches heresy you claim it’s just his opinion. When he teaches something you like, you claim it’s as good as doctrine.

Thanks for the quotes on what LDS calls scripture today. Or as you said “just this year.” But what has LDS historically taught? Ah, you never want us to look into your history, only what you say today is truth. JWs do this very well too, except they call it “New Light.”

“WHAT IS SCRIPTURE? When one of the brethren stands before a congregation of the people today, and the inspiration of the Lord is upon him, he speaks that which the Lord would have him speak. It is just as much scripture as anything you will find written in any of these records, and yet we call these the standard works of the Church. We depend, of course, upon the guidance of the brethren who are entitled to inspiration.” (Joseph Fielding Smith Doctrines of Salvation Volume 1 Page 186)

“The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture.” (Gospel Principles Page 52)

“In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.” (Gospel Principles Page 55)

And what about that JOD? George Q. Cannon says in the preface on page 8, “The Journal of Discourses deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the Church, and every rightminded Saint will certainly welcome with joy every number as it comes forth.”

On page 15 in the preface, Albert Carrington says, “We take great pleasure in presenting to the Saints and the world the … JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, which they will find contains rich treasures of information concerning the glorious principles of Eternal Life, as revealed through God’s anointed servants in these last days. All who read the discourses contained in this Volume are earnestly recommended to adapt them to their lives by practice, and we can confidently assure them that, in doing so, they are laying up a store of knowledge that will save and exalt them in the Celestial kingdom.”

Wilford Woodruff said, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.”
(The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff Pages 212-213).

Ezra Taft Benson said, “There is only one man on the earth today who speaks for the Church. That man is the President of the Church. Because he gives the word of the Lord for us today, his words have an even more immediate importance than those of the dead prophets. When speaking under the influence of the Holy Ghost, his words are scripture.” (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson Page 134)

And he goes on, “The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture. Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel, but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4). (The Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophets).

I could go on, and on and on. My point is LDS is just like Jehovah’s Witnesses, their doctrines, teachings and rules change so frequently that you can never pin them down. Why would anyone in the world want to follow an organization that changes so frequent? One day Adam is God, the next he’s not. One day God had sex with Mary, the next He didn’t. One day all blacks are cursed, the next day they’re not. One day Blood Atonement is doctrine, the next it’s not. One day polygamy is essential to salvation, the next it’s not. And the list goes on!

I’ve debated with LDS and JWs and they all use the same techniques. I am more than willing to debate the issues with you, but I would hope for your brutal honesty in all matters.

I honestly can’t imagine what has prompted you to take such an interest in what I’ve said, unless it strikes a nerve someplace. I’m just one man, without a forum such as yours to make my views heard, nor do I have any sort of regular audience, as I see you do. Well, I fear I may be a bit overmatched. Nonetheless, I will continue to state my piece.

My point, regarding the paternity of Jesus Christ (as well as virtually any other issue regarding the “blasphemous nature” of LDS doctrine) is that a statement, by any one person within the church, IS NOT a declaration of that church’s doctrine, it IS NOT representative of what is believed by the members of that organization, and it IS NOT a valid argument when viciously attacking that church! How fair would it be if I took every comment by a pastor or priest in your church as indicative of your church’s beliefs?

I suspect that at one time or another, over the past 200 years of your church’s existence, there has been a teaching or two that didn’t accurately represent the belief of your church as a whole. Now how fair would it be for your detractors to publish these teachings, out of context, and assert that those teachings represented you? I assume you understand my point.

Who, after all, is better qualified to inform others of my beliefs? You or me? I can tell you, unequivocally, that I have never heard such things taught or preached in my church at ANY level, be it local, national, or at our semi-annual worldwide conferences. Therefore I reiterate, these are NOT LDS beliefs.

You state that I’ve “either been ill informed all these years or [I] purposely lied in this public forum to defend [my] organization from its own teachings”… well I would claim the very same things about you! The majority of the quotes you publish are NOT LDS doctrine, and the fact that you claim that they are makes YOU either uninformed or an outright liar! Now that I have cleared up this matter, I trust you will not continue to perpetuate this myth.

Next, you might wonder, who am I, to tell you what is, or is not official church doctrine? Well let me point you to an official press release, published just this year, which attempts to head off some of these false teachings:

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=970af549db852110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD

A few excerpts:

“Much misunderstanding about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints revolves around its doctrine… The Church welcomes inquisitiveness, but the challenge of understanding Mormon doctrine is not merely a matter of accessing the abundant information available. Rather, it is a matter of how this information is approached and examined. ”

“Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.”

I suggest anyone looking for more insight read the entire link, and examine the embedded links within the text that I cannot post here. It really makes sense, when you think about it, to look to the LDS church when researching LDS beliefs, and not some smear site, such as this.

One other smaller, but highly valid point. The matter you’ve chosen to address above is of very small import in the grand scheme of things. Jesus Christ, and his atoning sacrifice is what is most important to my personal salvation. All other matters are but a trifle, when compared to this.

If you insist on continuing to assault and belittle my faith, then once again, I have to call into question your motives. If they are true (and I cannot truly know, as I do not know you personally) then I would suggest you speak of Mormon doctrines with more respect– with kindness and gentle persuasion, as Christ Himself would have done. Bring up tenets of doctrine that are scriptually based, and then we can debate their merits on an even playing field. Or I would also be willing to talk about any doctrine, given the proper link to the lds.org website. There are tens of thousands of articles available, all easily searchable. Until then, any silence by me will only be because of a perceived lack of proper respect, and not because I have nothing to say

I wonder how Mormon wives feel about the possibility that, after their “exaltation” (acquiring godhood), their husbands could actually have sex with their spirit children when they are born with bodies on their kingdom planet?

Thanks for the info.

Sadly, (if I’ve seen it once, I’ve seen it a million times) we may not hear back from Jake or any Mormon for that matter. This is their Method of Operation:

When challenged, they claim the one challenging their doctrine is only doing so for selfish reasons and that if only that person understood their beliefs they wouldn’t be challenging LDS beliefs, but would instead agree with them.

However, when the one challenging them displays a well informed grasp of true Mormon doctrine, the Mormon more often than not, disappears, never to be heard from again.

Tis a shame because if they had the truth, they should feel confident enough to stand their ground and not run and hide. They claim they want people to see both sides of the debate. That is until they find out you’re someone who knows the truth about their doctrines.

I hope Jake makes an exception to this, I’d love to hear from him again.

I’m interested in seeing what the reader says.