Political Crossfire Forums

[Buxford]

Something to ponder:

There have been AT LEAST 3,900 changes to the BoM since its publication in 1830.

27,000 words from the BoM are copied straight out of the KJV of the Bible. Complete books and chapters have been copied into the BoM, including most of the Book of Isaiah. There are also several passages from Shakespeare's Hamelt and Macbeth in the BoM. Plagiarism, anone?

There is absolutely no historical evidence that validates the events and existence of civilizations in the BoM. 16 kinds of animals, including cows, pigs, goats, and horses, and several kinds of metals, including steel and copper, did not exist or were not used in North America before the European settlement.

And Mormons claim that the BoM is the most perfect book on Earth... :think:

[LDS Patriot]

Buxford
Quote: Something to ponder...There have been AT LEAST 3,900 changes to the BoM since its publication in 1830.

Buxford, I do wish you would ponder as opposed to cut&paste from anti-Mormon sites. Facts are our friends and you should not shun them. You need to form your own opinion and that not in a data free environment. Why you allow others to spoon feed you opinions about the LDS faith is baffling.

Further, such tired and old and silly accusatory allegations may be polemic in nature, but certainly not intellectual nor scholarly.

So, please, Buxford, take your advice and ponder deeply the following response to your post.

By ‘correct’ Joseph Smith was speaking about the contents and the doctrines and the teachings of the Book of Mormon rather than to its grammatical construction, punctuation, and spelling.

I suggest that the statement of Joseph Smith can only be understood and appreciated in light of the doctrines and teachings of the Book of Mormon. According to Elder Boyd K. Packer, "true doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior."

President Ezra Taft Benson has said "the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, . . . the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior."

To emphasize the Savior's power, President Benson has also stated that "the Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. . . . The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature."

Joseph Smith's statement, therefore, is a concise declaration that the Book of Mormon is the "most correct of any book" because it has the power to change individuals into more correct (Christlike) people.

This change can only come because of better understanding Christ as the "keystone" figure of the Book of Mormon, and by applying the atonement, which embraces all of the "precepts" that bring one nearer to God.

Changes in the Book of Mormon
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai282.html

Why Were 4,000 Changes Made in The Book of Mormon?
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/changes.htm

[LDS Patriot]

Buxford
Quote: There is absolutely no historical evidence that validates the events and existence of civilizations in the BoM. 16 kinds of animals, including cows, pigs, goats, and horses, and several kinds of metals, including steel and copper, did not exist or were not used in North America before the European settlement.

Buxford, I do wish you would ponder as opposed to cut&paste from anti-Mormon sites. Facts are our friends and you should not shun them. You need to form your own opinion and that not in a data free environment. Why you allow others to spoon feed you opinions about the LDS faith is baffling.

Further, such tired and old and silly accusatory allegations may be polemic in nature, but certainly not intellectual nor scholarly.

So, please, Buxford, take your advice and ponder deeply the following Book of Mormon evidences the next time you think about speciously claiming ‘absolutely no historical evidence’.

Authorship and Evidences
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai110.html

FAIR Brochures (Brief Answers)
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai201.html

Book of Mormon Evidences
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

The Arabian Bountiful Discovered? Evidence for Nephi's Bountiful
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=165&table=jbms

Nephi Project: Is the Book of Mormon a true history?
http://www.nephiproject.com/

BYU FARMS Other Questions & Evidences of the Week
http://farms.byu.edu/other_questions_evidences.php

[Buxford]

Quote: Buxford, I do wish you would ponder as opposed to cut&paste from anti-Mormon sites.

So do you consider EVERY source that challenges Mormon beliefs and doctrines anti-Mormon? Why don't you try REFUTING some of my sources and statements rather than take the easy way out and brand them "anti-mormon" and "unreliable." Most of my sources are reliable, and if they aren't true, by all means prove them wrong.

Quote: Why Were 4,000 Changes Made in The Book of Mormon?
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/changes.htm

This is a complete joke:

As is evident from his statement, he was referring to the book's precept--the doctrines it contains which bring a man to God. First of all, anti-Mormon detractors often misquote Joseph Smith, and they have done so on this statement. Joseph Smith never said it was a perfect book. What he said, in a meeting with the Twelve on November 28, 1841, is recorded in History of the Church, Vol.4, p. 461, as follows. "I told the brethern that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." Joseph's statement does not mean correct as far as spelling, grammar, or punctuation, but correct as to its historical origin and doctrinal precepts.

Which begs the question: How can the BoM be "the most perfect book in the world" if there are thousands upon thousands of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors? Perfection implies free of any mistake: there are almost 4000 of them in your "perfect" book. He also fails to point out that there are several DOCTRINAL CHANGES too...

Anti-Mormon criticisms of changes in the Book of Mormon have their roots in Evangelical beliefs pertaining to what they regard as the "inerrancy of the Bible." Yet to sustain their belief in the Bible's inerrancy, in the light of the many thousands of changes and variations which exist in the numerous manuscripts and translations, they typically hedge their definitions of inerrancy with numerous limitations such as the following summarized from The Moody Handbook of Theology, pp. 166-70:

The anti-Mormon detractors who criticize the changes made in the Book of Mormon are seeking to impose a different standard on the Mormon scripture than they claim for the Bible. If the criteria listed above are applied to the Book of Mormon, then their criticism is completely lacking in merit and is valueless.

The Bible is the most perfect religious book in the world. There have been no changes to it since its beginning many thousands of years ago. As we have the original, handwritten copies, translations are 99.5% perfect, and the original KJV of the Bible was free of grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. So no, we do not hold a "double standard."

http://www.carm.org/questions/rewritten.htm

[b]While it is true that there have been several thousand of changes made in the Book of Mormon since its first printing, the vast majority have been punctuation, spelling and minor grammatical corrections. However, there have been other changes in addition to these.[/b]

So how in the world can the BoM be perfect if there have been 4000 "corrections" since its publishing in 1830????


It is obvious that the first edition of the Book of Mormon was punctuated and then typeset (by hand, one letter at a time) by a young, relatively unskilled worker and was proofread by completely inexperienced proofreaders.

Again, how can the BoM be perfect if there are errors in the original publication?


The changes in the book present little problem to most Latter-day Saints. Even the most ardent anti-Mormons have cited only about a dozen changes as having any doctrinal and historical significance. A close examination shows that even they are not significant. The Book of Mormon was written by prophets, abridged by a prophet, translated by a prophet, and changes were made under the further direction of a prophet. It was the word of God before the changes were made and it is the word of God after the changes have been made.

That's a bunch of bull:

http://www.carm.org/lds/bom_changes.htm

These are hardly minor corrections, and the Mormons EVEN TO THIS DAY are changing things, whereas the Bible is unchanging.

The changes in the Book of Mormon are actually few compared to the number of changes made in today's English Bibles. The late William Barclay, perhaps one of the best known of British Bible expositors, records the following facts:

In the Greek manuscript of the New Testament, there are 150,000 places in which there are variant readings. Of these 150,000, fewer than 400 affect the sense, fewer than 50 are of any importance (William Barclay, Introducing the Bible, p.134).

Barclay also cites a 19th century committee of the American Bible Society which examined six different editions of the Authorized Version (King James) and found nearly 24,000 differences! (ibid, p.134)

If the 4,000 minor changes in the Book of Mormon make it without value, what do the 24,000 differences in the Bible do to its worth? Some detractors would probably be aghast if they read about the number of changes to the Bible. Do detractors feel differently about their conviction that the Bible is the word of God because of these changes? We would think not.

Interesting, considering Barclay didn't believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, or the divinity of Jesus. Why, then, would his statements and beliefs on the Bible be deemed reliable?

Anyway, the fact that there are minor differences between the translations and the original manuscripts means nothing, as the English versions are just that: TRANSLATIONS. Of COURSE there will be differences between different translations of the Bible, but that hardly means anything, considering we have THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS. These, in and of themselves, are perfect. Though there are minor translation differences (no "errors"), there are no major corrections, changes, or doctrinal mistakes, which is more than we can say for the BoM. There was no translating the BoM: it was all done in English, and yet there were STILL 4000 errors, even upon publication!!! This raises another question about the BoM: Where are the original golden plates? Somehow the Mormons aren't able to locate those, though they were supposedly colossal in size....

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/barclayEnigma.htm

Quote:
Facts are our friends and you should not shun them.

OMG, you are a lunatic. You have shunned and ignored EVERY SINGLE FACT I HAVE POSTED ON MORMONISM.

Quote: You need to form your own opinion and that not in a data free environment. Why you allow others to spoon feed you opinions about the LDS faith is baffling.

I have looked at this from all angles. I have researched Mormonism, and have established my own, logical opinion of your religion, and have come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than a false and dangerous cult. Everything you've said has only strengthened my belief that the LDS brainwash their followers beyond reason and logic.

Quote:
Further, such tired and old and silly accusatory allegations may be polemic in nature, but certainly not intellectual nor scholarly.

And your accusations of "ANTI MORMON ANTI MORMON!!!" are? Ever hear of doublethink?

Quote: So, please, Buxford, take your advice and ponder deeply the following Book of Mormon evidences you speciously claim ‘absolutely no historical evidence’.

I will just as soon as you address MY sources, rather than simply dismiss them as "Anti-Mormon" and ignore them.

[acerbus80]

LDS Patriot, could you provide some non biased links to support any of this, preferably from a neutral party? Not all from BYU or mormon conducted or sponsored research?

[djwaglmuffin]

Robodoon wrote: LDS Patriot wrote: I came across the web page of Paul McNabb's, "Five Signs of an Anti-Mormon".

Do you agree or disagree with Paul's definition copied below as to what constitutes the qualities and characteristics of an Anti-Mormon?

What parts do you agree with?

What parts do you disagree with?

Paul wrote:

A Brief Discussion of Anti-Mormonism

I will never classify a person as "anti-Mormon" who is defending his own beliefs, no matter how much at odds with LDS beliefs that may be. Contrasting what you believe with LDS beliefs and showing why you think you're right and the LDS are wrong is, in my book, not anti-Mormon.

People can step over the line and become anti-Mormon, however. (People can step over the line and become anti-anything, of course.) Usually it happens when a person become so passionate about proving Mormonism to be false that he stops being kind, tolerant, patient, and respectful.

Paul McNabb's Five Signs of an Anti-Mormon

An anti-Mormon is a person who does one or more of the following.

1) Describes Latter-day Saints or LDS leaders as being stupid, insincere, dishonest, or evil.

2) Accuses Latter-day Saints of having a "secret" doctrine or agenda, argues with Latter-day Saints about "what Mormons really believe," or refuses to accept a Latter-day Saint's description of his beliefs as being valid LDS beliefs.

3) Distorts and mischaracterizes LDS beliefs by presenting beliefs or citations out of context; presents the most unfavorable LDS behaviors or statements as being typical, normative, or authoritative; or presents and mocks LDS beliefs using parody, caricature, and demeaning language.

4) Interferes with Latter-day Saints in their worship and religious practice, such as by picketing Church buildings and events, shouting through bullhorns at LDS gatherings, etc.

5) Uses seminars, books, newsletters, websites, and other forms of mass media to specifically target Latter-day Saints to destroy their faith or to encourage others to do so.

http://paul.mcnabbs.org/religion/antimormon.html

Mormans are Masons in hiding. ;)

:rofl:
Funny you mention that!

[Disciple_of_Common]

LDS Patriot wrote: acerbus80 wrote: considering that a large piece of the Mormon belief (the Lamanites, or native americans, being of middle eastern descent) has been scientifically disproven by using DNA testing, discredits them alot. And the history of racism in the church doesn't help any either.

It is scientifically unsound to claim "scientifically disproven by using DNA testing." The DNA samples reflect only some, not all peoples. What is more, DNA testing is limited in this regard.

Get the facts before you jump to conclusions. Facts are our friends and shouldn't be shunned?

Here are the scientific facts to date::

Those who make this claim have not done actual DNA studies that had the premise of being a litmus test the Book of Mormons historical claims. Rather, they have sloppily borrowed other research and cast out unwarranted accusations against the Book of Mormon. Clearly this hardly is a "scientific" approach, as I'm sure you would agree (if you know anything about science in the least, that is).

DNA has supported New World immigrations from Asiatic populace, and to that we say, "So what?" This falls short of disproving the Book of Mormon for several reasons.

1) The Book of Mormon doesn't deal with all ancient New World peoples. Meaning, the geography and group in the Book of Mormon is very limited, and other peoples were present in the New World before Lehi's family came over. Take this into account and that means "scientific" conclusions are impossible.

2) We don't know what Israelite DNA from Lehi's time looks like. Therefore, without a base line, without knowing what to look for, "scientific" conclusions are impossible.

3) DNA markers can and do disappear. Take into account the combined effects of Genetic Bottleneck, the Founder Effect and Genetic Drift, and that means "scientific" conclusions are impossible.

DNA evidence is not incompatible with a belief that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document. That is the only "scientific" conclusion that can be confirmed at the moment.

Is An Historical Book of Mormon Compatible With DNA Science?
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/BoMDNA.pdf

DNA and the Book of Mormon
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html

Be careful in which rocks or stones you overturn Elder. You may just get a lil more than you bargained for.

There have been members of your church (some defected) with FARMS who have researched the artifacts, and thru geological analysis, found no proof of any Lamanite civilizations. Careful study of archeology data refutes the BOM and even the Smithsonian Institute has went on the record several times stating it has no proof whatsoever that any society or BOM sites ever existed. No tools, no evidence of Large Nephite/Lamanite wars, or metals and materials claimed to be used in the BOM.

Be careful Elder.........your faith is at stake.

[Disciple_of_Common]

acerbus80 wrote: LDS Patriot, could you provide some non biased links to support any of this, preferably from a neutral party? Not all from BYU or mormon conducted or sponsored research?

He wont present any simply because there is no such non biased support for what he or the Mormon church proclaims.

Some of them.........believe that Eden is actually in Missouri (in or near Jackson county). Adam-ondi-Ahman. Not all of them are aware that this was taught in the early church, and some of them outright argue with the notion that their church would even endorse such a story. In essence, you have a sect within a sect, within a sect with Mormonism. There is lots and lots of filtration of information from the top down and from older generational Mormons downward to younger. For example, if you were to ask a Mormon under the age of, say, 35 about the Adam/God teaching, you'd get this dumbfounded look followed by a scowl, summed up with the inevitable quote "where'd you get that information from ??!!!". But if you were to ask this same question to a much older Mormon, you'd get a different response..........something like this" "Well........ (pause) it was taught, however.........(looooooooong drawn out spin excuse that really doesnt make much since)......but thru modern revelation we get bits and bits more information from God/The Prophet for clearer understanding.I have a strong and true testimony that is unshakable. And I say these things in ______________ name, Amen" .

I know these things because ive questioned many ive come in contact with. Ive even caught a few off guard and left them angry, but i ask because i needed clarification and then im left on my own to research because no one can answer. "Pray about it.....pray about it". I seemed to have heard it all.

Then there are the temple ordinances and the secret names and rituals. Strange indeed.

I love it how they claim the church fell into an apostacy but casually forget to mention the wishes granted (according to the BOM) by Yeshua to the three Nephites who wanted to remain alive til the return of the Messiah to instill and maintain the church and His word on the face of the earth in His absence. They didnt do their job as they promised apparently. And Yeshua apparently didnt have the foresight to know what would befell the church. Interesting.

Most of the church's doctine is absent from either the Bible or the BOM. So ive asked the question personally: "where do you guys get this stuff ?"

[usuchamp]

I wouldn't consider slamming the door on missionaries to be anti-Mormonism, but devoting one's life trying to scientifically disprove any religion seems to both hateful and wasteful. The scientific debate can always be trumped by the assertion that the Lamanites DNA might even have been changed as punishment. But the scientific debate is hardly important in comparison to the philosophies of this Christian religion.

[Disciple_of_Common]

usuchamp wrote: I wouldn't consider slamming the door on missionaries to be anti-Mormonism, but devoting one's life trying to scientifically disprove any religion seems to both hateful and wasteful. The scientific debate can always be trumped by the assertion that the Lamanites DNA might even have been changed as punishment. But the scientific debate is hardly important in comparison to the philosophies of this Christian religion.

Changed as punishment..................??!! Are you serious...............sorta like the black man being marked as a rebellious soul who chose to side with Lucifer during the great war in Heaven. Are you alluding to the same thing here ?

The garden of Eden moved to Missouri, DNA changed, God (YWHW) possessing a body of flesh and bones and a relational connection with an adversary Lucifer (spiritual brothers).

All i ask anyone parroting such jibberish is to somehow scripturally, or scientifically prove it.

Whom else's DNA has changed, and where might we find all this evidence of great wars and battles consuming hundreds of thousands of these Lamanites and Nephites in such a short segment of time ?

[usuchamp]

From 2 Ne. 5:21, "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Even with the Mormon faith, it is debatable as to whether this is a literal change in appearance, and by what mechanisms, or whether this alludes to a change in demeanor. This story also resembles what may have happened to Ham and his family in Genesis 9.

Job 38:7 states, "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Compare this to Isaiah 14:12, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!..." Mormon doctrine teaches that Satan literally is a spirit son of God, but Satan fell. Christ, Satan, and the people on earth are thought to be brothers and sisters in that they are children of God.

Concerning the resurrected Christ in Luke 24:39, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." If Christ has a body, then it might hold that God has a body of flesh and bones as well. Other parts of the Bible refer to God's face, feet, finger, back parts, mouth, hand, and body.

I hardly consider over 1,000 years to be a short amount of time, especially considering comparatively large family sizes.

I don't mean to prove anything with these references from the King James version of the Bible, but to show that the doctrines aren't just "jibberish" with no Biblical backing.

[Disciple_of_Common]

usuchamp wrote: From 2 Ne. 5:21, "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

Even with the Mormon faith, it is debatable as to whether this is a literal change in appearance, and by what mechanisms, or whether this alludes to a change in demeanor. This story also resembles what may have happened to Ham and his family in Genesis 9.

Job 38:7 states, "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Compare this to Isaiah 14:12, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!..." Mormon doctrine teaches that Satan literally is a spirit son of God, but Satan fell. Christ, Satan, and the people on earth are thought to be brothers and sisters in that they are children of God.

Concerning the resurrected Christ in Luke 24:39, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." If Christ has a body, then it might hold that God has a body of flesh and bones as well. Other parts of the Bible refer to God's face, feet, finger, back parts, mouth, hand, and body.

I hardly consider over 1,000 years to be a short amount of time, especially considering comparatively large family sizes.

I don't mean to prove anything with these references from the King James version of the Bible, but to show that the doctrines aren't just "jibberish" with no Biblical backing.

Where might we find evidence of such societies and this great calamitous war that ensued between the Nephites and Lamanites ? Where would one begin to look to gather artifacts to support such a claim that these people did indeed exist at the time the BOM places them ?

As far as body parts, im quite sure there's a reference to God in the scriptures that mention him with the ability to fly--------does that mean he has wings as well ? Talons, a beak ?

[usuchamp]

Some parts of the scriptures are literal while others are figurative. God, being omnipotent, could "fly" without wings. God may have literally descended in order to represent the symbolism in such descension. Debating about evidence is meaningless and destructive as no religion can be proved nor disproved scientifically; faith is a requirement of religion.

[Darth Tiberius]

I wish I was omnipotent. I'd have some fun. :hip:

[Disciple_of_Common]

usuchamp wrote: Some parts of the scriptures are literal while others are figurative. God, being omnipotent, could "fly" without wings. God may have literally descended in order to represent the symbolism in such descension. Debating about evidence is meaningless and destructive as no religion can be proved nor disproved scientifically; faith is a requirement of religion.

Well, in that case God would possess fingernails, but why would he need them ? He would possess hair, but why would he need such ? He would also possess gonads (sexual organs) but why would he require them ? Literally or figuratively...............And God said "Let there be light". And there was light and it was good. Hands not required, only his glory and command.

Jericho (walls) was proven with artifacts, so was Sodom and Gomorrah. Ark of the Covenant, the Tower of Babel, King Solomon's Temple, tombs of contemporaries of St Paul..............among hundreds and hundreds of others. Places in the Bible actually exist or have evidence of their existence. The city of Tyre for example can be located via remnants that are spoken of in the scriptures. While i can agree that some degree of faith is involved with religion, one cannot go on faith alone, else we could fall for anyone touting to be prophetic or ordained by God to lead a flock. "We dont need evidence of what i say, just have faith and believe that it be truth".

Factual evidence, while not necessarily required, just solidifies what i believe to be truth--placing the exclamation point making things definitive, if you will. Yeshua (Christ) performed miracles to prove what and whom he was. And when he ascended back to the throne on the 3rd day as he professed he would, that gave the doubters yet more "proof" that he truly was the Messiah.

[usuchamp]

Disciple_of_Common wrote:
Well, in that case God would possess fingernails, but why would he need them ? He would possess hair, but why would he need such ? He would also possess gonads (sexual organs) but why would he require them ? Literally or figuratively...............And God said "Let there be light". And there was light and it was good. Hands not required, only his glory and command.

This is not a matter of whether God needs anything in particular to do His will. If God wants to be intangible, He has the power to do so. If God wants to be tangible and have a body of flesh and bones, He has the power to do so. Would you deny Him this power? Quite frankly, I think more power is shown in the manifestation of a physical body than floating around the universe as spiritual energy, as many religions suppose. Also, if God has a physical, perfected body, isn't that some comfort to us physical, imperfect creatures? The LDS faith teaches that we are children of a Heavenly Father, and we were made in His image.

[ricekrispies187]

usuchamp wrote: Disciple_of_Common wrote:
Well, in that case God would possess fingernails, but why would he need them ? He would possess hair, but why would he need such ? He would also possess gonads (sexual organs) but why would he require them ? Literally or figuratively...............And God said "Let there be light". And there was light and it was good. Hands not required, only his glory and command.

This is not a matter of whether God needs anything in particular to do His will. If God wants to be intangible, He has the power to do so. If God wants to be tangible and have a body of flesh and bones, He has the power to do so. Would you deny Him this power? Quite frankly, I think more power is shown in the manifestation of a physical body than floating around the universe as spiritual energy, as many religions suppose. Also, if God has a physical, perfected body, isn't that some comfort to us physical, imperfect creatures? The LDS faith teaches that we are children of a Heavenly Father, and we were made in His image.

I am in a rather difficult position in that I was raised a Catholic, and my ex is a mormon. Our childern have become Mormon, I think that it is great that they have faith. I do not think it is great that my childern are considered "unpure" because they are converts. I do not think it is great that they have a "Sealing Ceremony" ritual that ties their spirit to the church. I do not think it is great that an 8 year child has undergo the rituals of "Baptism for The Dead" . I do not think it is great that an "unbeliever" (this is the most ridiculous and over used word for the LDS religion) can not go to the temple, the innermost temple, or go to a wedding in the temple, because they are unbeliever, and therefore, they are unclean. I do not think that it is a great idea that the childern can not go to any other church and experience "God's presence" because it resides only in the Mormon church. I do not think that it is great that your own child tells you that you will go to hell because you are not a Mormon. Therefore, you do not believe in God, and if you do, you do not believe in the right God. Hence the phrase "Choose the Right."
And you say we are anti-Mormon.
I can live with that.
God gave us freedom of choice.
God says do not judge one another.
Any religion that judges others and calls them unbelievers, un-pure or infidels, is not a religion that follows the words of Christ.
No I do not believe that any one religion is better than the next, it is only a stepping stone to the path that leads to a oneness spiritual connection with God, when you are no longer praying (after all, God knows what is in your heart) when you are listening to God, you no longer need any organized religion.

[usuchamp]

ricekrispies187 wrote:

I am in a rather difficult position in that I was raised a Catholic, and my ex is a mormon. Our childern have become Mormon, I think that it is great that they have faith. I do not think it is great that my childern are considered "unpure" because they are converts. I do not think it is great that they have a "Sealing Ceremony" ritual that ties their spirit to the church. I do not think it is great that an 8 year child has undergo the rituals of "Baptism for The Dead" . I do not think it is great that an "unbeliever" (this is the most ridiculous and over used word for the LDS religion) can not go to the temple, the innermost temple, or go to a wedding in the temple, because they are unbeliever, and therefore, they are unclean. I do not think that it is a great idea that the childern can not go to any other church and experience "God's presence" because it resides only in the Mormon church. I do not think that it is great that your own child tells you that you will go to hell because you are not a Mormon. Therefore, you do not believe in God, and if you do, you do not believe in the right God. Hence the phrase "Choose the Right."
And you say we are anti-Mormon.
I can live with that.
God gave us freedom of choice.
God says do not judge one another.
Any religion that judges others and calls them unbelievers, un-pure or infidels, is not a religion that follows the words of Christ.
No I do not believe that any one religion is better than the next, it is only a stepping stone to the path that leads to a oneness spiritual connection with God, when you are no longer praying (after all, God knows what is in your heart) when you are listening to God, you no longer need any organized religion.

I would just like to make a few corrections:
-converts and naturally-born LDS members are considered to be on equal ground
-the sealing ceremony ties family members together, not members to the church
-at 8 years old, a child may be baptized, but they must 12 years old to perform baptisms for the dead and this is only if they choose to
-I don't know of anybody that uses the term "unbeliever;" I usually hear "nonmember" or "nonmormon."
-I've been to the temple to perform baptisms for the dead, but I haven't received my endowment, so I haven't been through the temple. I had no problem not witnessing my brother's wedding. Nobody has the right to parade around in what LDS members consider a house of the Lord, but a few members are privileged to reverently visit to perform ceremonies.
-I would assume "God's presence" is a reference to the Holy Ghost. LDS teachings say that all people can feel the Holy Ghost, but only baptized members are given the gift of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, which will depart in the presence of sin.
-Mormons don't believe in an all-or-nothing heaven or hell afterlife. People that were not given the opportunity to learn of the gospel will be taught in "spirit prison" by people from "spirit paradise." After judgment, people will go to different kingdoms of differing glory.
-I believe in God
-LDS members are taught not to judge based on prejudices and stereotypes. However, members are taught to exercise "righteous judgment" based on knowledge and spiritual promptings.

[ricekrispies187]

usuchamp wrote: ricekrispies187 wrote:

I am in a rather difficult position in that I was raised a Catholic, and my ex is a mormon. Our childern have become Mormon, I think that it is great that they have faith. I do not think it is great that my childern are considered "unpure" because they are converts. I do not think it is great that they have a "Sealing Ceremony" ritual that ties their spirit to the church. I do not think it is great that an 8 year child has undergo the rituals of "Baptism for The Dead" . I do not think it is great that an "unbeliever" (this is the most ridiculous and over used word for the LDS religion) can not go to the temple, the innermost temple, or go to a wedding in the temple, because they are unbeliever, and therefore, they are unclean. I do not think that it is a great idea that the childern can not go to any other church and experience "God's presence" because it resides only in the Mormon church. I do not think that it is great that your own child tells you that you will go to hell because you are not a Mormon. Therefore, you do not believe in God, and if you do, you do not believe in the right God. Hence the phrase "Choose the Right."
And you say we are anti-Mormon.
I can live with that.
God gave us freedom of choice.
God says do not judge one another.
Any religion that judges others and calls them unbelievers, un-pure or infidels, is not a religion that follows the words of Christ.
No I do not believe that any one religion is better than the next, it is only a stepping stone to the path that leads to a oneness spiritual connection with God, when you are no longer praying (after all, God knows what is in your heart) when you are listening to God, you no longer need any organized religion.

I would just like to make a few corrections:
-converts and naturally-born LDS members are considered to be on equal ground
Converts and naturally born members are not on equal ground, my childern will not have the privelage of marrying in the temple. It has been stated to them several times.

-the sealing ceremony ties family members together, not members to the church

The sealing ceremony is a purely selfishness act on the part of the church and the family to do this, what if someone decided later that they would rather spend their "afterlife" with someone else that they meet later in life? They have to go through this same ceremony? What about the people that were never Mormons, never intend to be Mormons, they will never be with their loved ones that are Mormons? Not that I believe for a moment that WE DON'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE! It is just another technique for the church to establish control over one's life.

-at 8 years old, a child may be baptized, but they must 12 years old to perform baptisms for the dead and this is only if they choose to

How does a 12 choose to do a Baptism for the Dead? He/She is told that he is saving souls ....and most of the time this is at the parents request....or the churches request that this child be available for it so they have enough people for the ceremony. What makes the Mormons think that the people that have passed away died with sins? What makes the Church think that they have more power than God over whose souls are saved and whose are not?


-I don't know of anybody that uses the term "unbeliever;" I usually hear "nonmember" or "nonmormon."

I hear the word non believer quite a bit, and it really is worse when it comes from you own childern.

-I've been to the temple to perform baptisms for the dead, but I haven't received my endowment, so I haven't been through the temple. I had no problem not witnessing my brother's wedding. Nobody has the right to parade around in what LDS members consider a house of the Lord, but a few members are privileged to reverently visit to perform ceremonies.

I can parade around any of the Catholic churches without a special privilege, I can actually walk into most churches without a special permission slip. Are these not considered a House of God also?

-I would assume "God's presence" is a reference to the Holy Ghost. LDS teachings say that all people can feel the Holy Ghost, but only baptized members are given the gift of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, which will depart in the presence of sin.

So I could not feel God's presence, the Feeling of the Holy Ghost, if God chooses to show it to me without a baptism ceremony? If I am taking a walk in the woods and marvel over the beauty and God chooses to surround me and stay wtih me as my eternal spirit, even though I am with sin, I am imperfect. Because God gave me the freedom of choice, in doing so, he knows that I am not perfect and that I will make mistakes, thus bringing me closer to Him. And it is stated in the Bible, that God is with you always.

-Mormons don't believe in an all-or-nothing heaven or hell afterlife. People that were not given the opportunity to learn of the gospel will be taught in "spirit prison" by people from "spirit paradise." After judgment, people will go to different kingdoms of differing glory.

Yes, this would be the several different planes of existence, and how you lived qualifies you to a certain plane of afterlife. I am sure that God will open his pearly gates for all those that believe, have faith and let us come in because we are believers, and we will not have to have lessons taught by a spirit that has not entered the Kingdom of Heaven. Because yet again, God loves us in all our imperfections, he gave us the freedom of choice, he is our Father. What Father would close his door on his childern because they misbehaved?

-I believe in God

I never doubted that.

-LDS members are taught not to judge based on prejudices and stereotypes. However, members are taught to exercise "righteous judgment" based on knowledge and spiritual promptings.

But who is to say that your righteous judgement is any better than mine? How do you know that your knowledge is any better or any less than mine or that your spiritual teaching are any better or worse than mine. As I stated earlier, God knows what is in your heart. He is the one and the only One that can judge me, not the church that I go to, not any other organized religion, Only God can judge me.

No, I am not knocking down your religion, but showing you that is it okay to disagree because in the end, we both might have learned something.
God Bless

[usuchamp]

In response to ricekrispies187. I really didn't want to start an argument; I was just merely pointing out facts based on official positions of the LDS church. It would appear that you either don't like the church very much or it seems that you do not have a very deep understanding of the practices of church members, so I will continue to clarify positions. You seem to have been misinformed on several levels, and I hope that such misinformation did not come from church members, for they ought to know better.

Quote: Converts and naturally born members are not on equal ground, my childern will not have the privelage of marrying in the temple. It has been stated to them several times.

Converts most certainly can be married in the temple. If converts are already married before joining the church, they can still be sealed in the temple. A person does have to be baptized for at least a year before being able to go through the temple, though.

Quote: The sealing ceremony is a purely selfishness act on the part of the church and the family to do this, what if someone decided later that they would rather spend their "afterlife" with someone else that they meet later in life? They have to go through this same ceremony? What about the people that were never Mormons, never intend to be Mormons, they will never be with their loved ones that are Mormons? Not that I believe for a moment that WE DON'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE! It is just another technique for the church to establish control over one's life.

Divorces, including the breaking of seals, are allowed within the church. This is not encouraged, though.

Quote: How does a 12 choose to do a Baptism for the Dead? He/She is told that he is saving souls ....and most of the time this is at the parents request....or the churches request that this child be available for it so they have enough people for the ceremony. What makes the Mormons think that the people that have passed away died with sins? What makes the Church think that they have more power than God over whose souls are saved and whose are not?

The church nor parents can force anyone to do baptisms for the dead. I was happy to perform these baptisms when I was that young. The only perfect person to live on this earth has been Christ; the rest of us are sinners. Baptisms for the dead are also a prequisite for other temple ceremonies for the dead. The church believes it is exercising the will of God, thus is subservient to God in all respects.

Quote: I hear the word non believer quite a bit, and it really is worse when it comes from you own childern.

This should not be the case. If someone uses the term "nonbeliever," then you should let the user know if it is offensive. This term is not coherent with the churchs's stance on tolerance for other religions.

Quote: I can parade around any of the Catholic churches without a special privilege, I can actually walk into most churches without a special permission slip. Are these not considered a House of God also?

There is a difference between a church meeting house and a temple. LDS doctrine would tell us that the temple is literally a house of the Lord. Other church buildings like meeting houses, stake centers, etc. are consecrated but not houses of the Lord. People not of the LDS faith are invited to attend regular sunday church meetings. Also, a technicality: it is private property, so exclusion is allowed.

Quote: So I could not feel God's presence, the Feeling of the Holy Ghost, if God chooses to show it to me without a baptism ceremony? If I am taking a walk in the woods and marvel over the beauty and God chooses to surround me and stay wtih me as my eternal spirit, even though I am with sin, I am imperfect. Because God gave me the freedom of choice, in doing so, he knows that I am not perfect and that I will make mistakes, thus bringing me closer to Him. And it is stated in the Bible, that God is with you always.

All people can feel the Holy Ghost from time-to-time, and the beauties of nature would be conducive to the Holy Ghost. Only baptized and confirmed church members have the gift of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Quote: Yes, this would be the several different planes of existence, and how you lived qualifies you to a certain plane of afterlife. I am sure that God will open his pearly gates for all those that believe, have faith and let us come in because we are believers, and we will not have to have lessons taught by a spirit that has not entered the Kingdom of Heaven. Because yet again, God loves us in all our imperfections, he gave us the freedom of choice, he is our Father. What Father would close his door on his childern because they misbehaved?

Faith without works is dead. People will either have the opportunity to know the gospel in this life or in the intermediary afterlife. No unclean thing may be in the presence of God. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ, we may repent of our sins.

Quote: I never doubted that [you believe in God].

This is in direct contradiction to your previous post, but I'm glad that you corrected yourself.

Quote: But who is to say that your righteous judgement is any better than mine? How do you know that your knowledge is any better or any less than mine or that your spiritual teaching are any better or worse than mine. As I stated earlier, God knows what is in your heart. He is the one and the only One that can judge me, not the church that I go to, not any other organized religion, Only God can judge me.

I do not know a lot about the subject of righteous judgment, but I'll let you know my thoughts. I think it is more of a personal matter, likely directed by the Holy Ghost. I think that righteous judgment is usually in relation to the trust placed in a person. It is not meant to serve as a basis for insults or actions against a person.