Tuesday, April 05, 2005


Do mormons consider themselves to be Christians in the Biblical sense?


Anonymous said...

sort of mormon:

yes we think of ourselves as christians, we believe in Christ, we believe he will come again, is that not what a "christian" believes?

Anonymous said...

Nailed to the door of the Wittenburg Church in 1517, this document made many people think for themselves.

Prohibited from reading secular materials (or any materials not approved by the church for that matter), and ignorant people blindly followed one leader.

This leader was corrupt at the time, and asked of his followers only that which benefitted the leader.

I guess we haven't come too far since 1517.

Residents of YFZ...WARREN JEFFS...please read the following and answer this: Can we really buy our way into heaven, or was that the whole purpose of Christ's death on the cross???

*Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.
23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.
24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.
25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.
26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.
27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.
30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.
31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.
32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;
34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.
40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].
41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.
45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.
46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.
47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.
52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.
53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.
54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.
57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.
60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ's merit, are that treasure;
61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.
64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.
65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.
66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.
67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.
68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.
70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!
73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.
74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.
75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God - this is madness.
76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.
77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.
78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.
79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
82. To wit: - "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."
83. Again: - "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"
84. Again: - "What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy, to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own need, free it for pure love's sake?"
85. Again: - "Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?"
86. Again: - "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?"
87. Again: - "What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"
88. Again: - "What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?"
89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?"
90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!
93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

FLDS could use a reformation,no?

Anonymous said...

I feel a revelation coming on. Please excuse me (stands up, goes to restroom, grunts and carries on then comes back) AAAH, much better. Too bad I had to flush my revelation.

Anonymous said...

When one says Mormons, one needs to remmber that what the FLDS believes is not what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) believes. They are to totally different, groups as different as night & day.

The LDS church maintains websites which one can submit questions about the church's beliefs. http://www.mormon.com and http://www.lds.org

The LDS church has been in Texas for many decades. There are 4 wards(local churches) in San Angelo, Tx and two in Abilene, TX.

And yes the LDS considers themselves Christian, they don't believe in polygamy any more than Catholics & Baptists.

And yes the LDS welcomes vistors to their church services, in addition to their websites one can call 800-645-4949

Unlike FLDS, the LDS is open about their beliefs.

Anonymous said...

The correct URL fot the LDS church is http://www.mormon.org

Sorry for the error on my previous post.

True Mormon said...

Yes 7:54 the LDS is different, but not by much. After the manifesto, the LDS church sponsered family seperation the same as Warren is doing. Any of the men who had more than one wife was forced to abandon them. Even now the LDS is attempting to convert FLDS members, but they cannot be baptized unless they abandon their plural families. Much like Warrens' Church (Warren has apostatized from the FLDS and created Warranism)Church authorities spy on their members and many have been cut off just for associating with FLDS members.
The LDS is embarrased by the "Mormon" name because it relates to Plural Marriage.

Anonymous said...

How does a mormon (or LDS) believe one is saved? In other words, what is the mormons' view for the plan of salvation? What does the relationship with Christ look like after that occurs?

If you are going to tell me it's the same as other Christian beliefs, then what is the purpose of the Book of Mormon?

Just a curious onlooker....

Anonymous said...

DO NOT BE DECEIVED. MORMANS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS in the Biblical sense (How else can you be a Christian?).

They want everyone to think that they have similar beliefs, and oh, by the way, here's this other book we like to read.

DO NOT READ THE BOOK OF MORMON. It does not agree with the Bible. Many mormons don't know this because they haven't ever studied the two side-by-side.

MORMONISM IS A CULT. Getting in is easy, but getting out is VERY difficult. They will try to turn your family against you if you try to get out. Just ask anyone who's on the other side.

They follow a man named Joseph Smith, who teaches that the "negro race" is fallen and that men should have more than one wife. The only difference between the FLDS and the LDS is that the LDS departed from some of Smith's teachings due to social pressures. The LDS try to hide that their great leader stood on those things, but DO YOUR RESEARCH!

Russ said...

wow folks. Sounds like everybody is pretty educated here on FLDS (you all must have been to their meetings). And, it sounds like everbody is pretty educated on LDS (likewise, you all must have been to their meetings).

You know, in reality, what someone posts online is not representative (nor is it usually true) of what an entire religion believes. That's similar to asking a murderer and adulterer (who happens to be catholic, jewish, or baptist for that matter) what his faith believes on subjects of salvation, forgiveness, and love of fellow man when (based on his or her actions) they obviously don't really understand what their religion believes.

Worst of all, people take them as a spokesperson for the religion. WHEN THEY OBVIOUSLY DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN LIVE THE BASIC TEACHINGS.

Its ethos folks. How can you listen to and believe people who talk about another religion when they don't live it. They don't live it because they don't understand it. It becomes really easy to just sound like an ignorant bigot when you lambaste religions based on the understanding you have of them all based on what some (I don't live it) person has told you.

Anonymous said...

EVERYBODY'S Pagan, Jews and Christians included. Read hear for the details. http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/

Anonymous said...

Ed Decker, who was a member of the Melchizedek Priesthood and a Temple Mormon, co-wrote a book called "The God Makers", which outlines the true beliefs of the Mormon church from an "insider's perspective".

I would challenge those of you who are confident in what you believe to read that book.

Anonymous said...

If you believe the following you are a Christian in the "Biblical sense":

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23

“But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8

“that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” Romans 10:9

“For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13

Anonymous said...

I am a dyslectic agnostic --
Is there really a DOG?

Ha ha

Anonymous said...

Thank you 10:42. I am a Christian and a Mormon Fundamentalist. Not long ago some LDS missionaries came to convert me to their way of thinking. In a few minutes they realized that they needed to go talk to their "Warren" to see what they should tell me. When they realized that I had more wives than one, we asked them if they would allow us to join their church and keep our family like this. The "Warren" in them told us that it would not be possible. The "Warren" in them told us that their prophet in 1890 cancelled 70 years of "unchangeble doctrine", and then their "Warren" told them that "God and the prophet do right. Stick with God and the prophet". Mormons were meant to be Christian, but LDS and FLDS are so unlike Christ.

Anonymous said...

If "Christian" has to do with following Christ and His teachings, and a belief that the Bible is true, or if a "Christian" is one who looks to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as the sole source of their salvation, then YES. We absolutely aer Christians.

However, there are some who define Christian to mean a connection with "historical Christianity", and a coonection to the Christian Church several centuries after Jesus, most particularly around the time of Constantine, and the Necene Creed of 325 AD. Since that is the time that the word Christian began to be used widely, I can see why they may define it that way.

However, I consider the first definition to be most valid, and the answer is YES. Mormons are Christians.

The real question for this blog would be "Are Warrenites FLDS?" or "Are FLDS Mormons?"

Anonymous said...

To russ, 10:40 AM:

What a wise man you are. Of course we can't judge all aspects of one's religion through a cursory or superficial examination. We can however see the exterior results of people's lives and can conclude that their behaviour is in part at least, of their philosophical bent.

You are correct to say that there are great deviations from all religious canon by members who commit crimes and exhibit psychotic behaviour. The individual must be judged on his or her own merits and such will be the case at the final day of judgment.

Anonymous said...

In regard to Martin Luther and Christians:

Martin Luther the reformer said many things, much of which is controversial. But his statement as quoted above that the true treasure of the church is the essence of the Gospel word and not money paid for the remission of sins, is profound. Only God can remit sins! A hireling ministry can only attempt to make you feel good, then take your money.

There is a certain element of this in all organized religion. Let us remember that Jesus required no monetary payment for absolution. He has freed us from such extortions.

Those who are feeding Warren Jeff's coffers to be declared righteous have only prostituted themselves, as have millions of others who attempt to buy their way into Heaven. However, having said that, consecrating money to the poor and tithing contributed for humanitarian good, is not a bad thing.

As an interesting side note, Martin Luther also Said:

Polygamy Is Permissible . . .
"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)

A google search of "Martin Luther and Polygamy" yields a plethora of information that renders the conclusion that polygamists can also be "Christians."

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

To anon 11:05
You mention that you rejected the LDS missionaries because they told you that you could only have one wife to join their church.

If your were in Eldorado, Tx and members of the First Baptist Church came by to visit, they would tell you the same thing, that to join the Baptist Church you must only have one wife, so it would be if you spoke to the priest at the Catholic Church in Eldorado, TX

To the person who posted that LDS is ashamed of being called mormon, why do they call their evangelism website mormon.org?

For those interested in beliefs of Baptists check out http://www.bgct.org

For the beliefs of Roman Catholics checkout: http://www.vatican.va

You will find all these churchs have different doctrinal beliefs, but all believe in the risen Christ,the forgiveness of sin, and eternal life.

They are all Christian IMO.

Anonymous said...

To 9:10 You should go and do your research. Joseph Smith ordained an African American to the priesthood. That's definatly racism. Ha Ha Ha. Sounds like you really know your stuff.

Anonymous said...

Just because you Google "Martin Luther and Polygamy" and some entries pop up, do not assume Luther condones Polygamy.

Luther did not forbid it due to social pressures (not great motives, but true). The purpose of posting the 95 thesis was to show that one person who chose to think for himself, and question church authorities, changed history.

When God was instructing Timothy on church conduct, he said:

"Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, THE HUSBAND OF BUT ONE WIFE, temperate, selfcontrolled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, NOT A LOVER OF MONEY."
1 Timothy 3:1-3

The passage goes on to say in verse 7:

"He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap."

True Reformation and enlightenment comes from reading the Bible, not listening to Warren Jeffs drone on and on about negros and plural marriage.

Love the Lord your God with all your mind. I think all I am suggesting is that everyone-regardless of religion, stop and think about their beliefs. To never question is to never know…to follow blindly.

Anonymous said...

Personally I like the 10:58 Agnostic Dog.

Anonymous said...

Your not a christian if you cut down other people and or there faith. Jesus taught that we should love one another and not judge. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I dont hate other religions I was never taught to hate people of other faith in the Church. We have been told just like Jesus taught. To love one another and not judge. Just because we share different theological beliefs does not mean we cannot or do not worship the same Lord.

Anonymous said...


Then I guess he was contradicting himself. Not a huge surprise, though. Mormons are walking contradictions.

Anonymous said...

Guess What?

I am ground zero and still here!
Nothing happened but a bunch of disappointed media.
Heard sheriff didn’t get to take tour.
Warren must have changed his mind.
Real windy though. Bet Warren takes credit for that.
I guess I am going to have to pay my utility bill now.

Anonymous said...

Guess What?

I am ground zero and still here!
Nothing happened but a bunch of disappointed media.
Real windy here. Bet Warren takes credit for that.

Heard sheriff didn’t get to take tour. Warren must have changed his mind.

I guess I am going to have to pay my utility bill now.

Anonymous said...

What's this I hear about the LDS' beliefs about the afterlife? Please tell me, someone out there who knows.

I thought I heard something about the men getting their own planet, complete with a bunch of women that they are supposed to be constantly impregnating.

Sounds great for the men, but if this is true, how in the heck are they drawing women to this? Is it because the only alternative is HELL??


Anonymous said...

So what time was the "lifting up" scheduled for?

And were there to be refreshments after?

Cookies and Kool-aid perhaps?

jayneedoe said...

Anonymous 7:54 wrote: “. . . LDS . . . don't believe in polygamy. . . .”

This is untrue. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), headquartered in Salt Lake City, do still believe in, and practice, polygamy.

Plural marriage is still part of its official scripture (Doctrine & Covenants 132), and men may still be married to two or more women for eternity in the temple ceremony. If a man does so marry, he will be married to all of his wives in the Celestial Kingdom (Mormondom’s highest version of heaven) for eternity. Thus, he will be practicing polygamy for eternity.

The Mormon Church does not, however, allow its members to practice polygamy in a civil sense. A man can only be civilly married to one woman at a time. For him to be married to a second wife (or third, fourth, etc.) in the temple, he must have either civilly divorced his previous wife or she must be dead. There is no limit to the number of wives a man may marry in the Mormon temple.

The “official” Mormon Church DOES still believe in and practice polygamy. So, it is not nearly as open about its beliefs as some of its members would claim.

jayneedoe said...

Anonymous 2:22 said: “To 9:10 You should go and do your research. Joseph Smith ordained an African American to the priesthood. That's definatly racism. Ha Ha Ha. Sounds like you really know your stuff.”

This is true; his name was Elijah Abel. However, when Brigham Young became president/prophet of the LDS church, he withdrew Mr. Abel’s priesthood authority because he was African American. Young also refused to allow Abel to attend the temple to receive his endowments. Thus began the Church’s long history of racism.

Interesting note: When Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel, Smith specified that Abel would be Smith’s “servant” for eternity in the Celestial Kingdom.

jayneedoe said...

In a previous post I wrote that Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel to be his servant for eternity.

While Smith did ordain an African American to be his servant, and I still believe it to be Abel, I cannot confirm that it was, in fact, Abel. So I'd like to retract that part of my message.


fence sitter said...

ok, LDS people, just calm down, have some Stephens hot chocolate and BREATH..... my goodness!!!!!

MrT said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MrT said...

well not to be critical but honestly all the old sermons and scriptures are there. Its just that over the last 100 plus years anything to do with multiple wives has been edged out of current LDS teachings. I find it of the highest order of hipocracy that the people professing to believe in a church will not even research the original teachings of the church. Even in the 132nd Section of the Doctrine & Covenants the title is "The New and Everlasting Covenant" Which part of the word Everlasting is it so hard to comprehend? Warren is an Abomination and yet the LDS Church is not far different in their hipocracy of their own history. You want to believe in something fine. But at least understand what it is you believe in. This ignorance is bliss is nothing more than brainwashing and mind control. I honestly don’t mean to attack anyone or for this to be harsh but please do your homework before you start claiming your beliefs. I have don’t my homework. I have lived it all my life and thankfully I saw who Warren was several years ago and made the choice to leave on my own. If I have learned one thing in my harsh awakening into reality its that religions create more conditions on Gods Unconditional love than anything else. That is just sad.

Anonymous said...

Uncle Roy taught "listen to the still small voice." But Warren has changed that to listen to the burning of the spirit. Personally I've found the still, small voice to be more accurate, and that burning must really hurt when Warren is done with you.

Anonymous said...

Here's a statement that was posted by a TV station in Utah the use of the term, "mormon" from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_097110406.html

Also checkout the church's offical websites http://www.lds.org and http://mormon.org

Seems they don't believe in polygamy any more than any other denomination such as the Baptists & Catholics, despite those who post otherwise.

I am a Texan, writing on this blog from the largest city in the south, Houston, Texas

rayj said...

Just a thought, It seems like for any one religion to claim God for their own is like the chickens to think the farmer belongs to only them. however, if we want to go where he is, it only makes sense to try to be like he is.

Anonymous said...

Why should we follow the word of God as interpreted by someone else? I thought that even Jesus taught that you should have a personal realization of his gospel(paraphrasing). So why would you rely on someone else to tell you what it all means? If one person can figure it out, then why can another not figure it out. I understand that some people devote their lives to studying the scriptures, but who is to say that these people don't become blinded by their closeness to it. I just think that we should take what is given and work out the truth of it for our own selves, and not take what we are told at face value.

Found Lost Boy said...

Simple, and well said rayj. This thread should end right there!

Anonymous said...

I'm sure that's what disobient Israel said as they were stoning God prophets aciently..."We don't need you stinking prophets telling us what to do and repent, we have our own realiztion of God". Seems humans haven't changed much.

Anonymous said...


Now that's a stretch. Is that you, Warren??


Anonymous said...


So let me get this straight. You're looking on THEIR website to see if they affiliate themselves with polygamy?

Talk about gullible. That's like watching a "Lucky Charms" cereal commercial and believing that they're actually "magically delicious".

It's part of their church history. No, they no longer hold it up as a "principle of their faith" (too many people agreed that polygamy was icky), but do a little more digging (hint: old church writings) and you'll find your answers - if you're really interested in the truth.

tex mex

Anonymous said...

Not sort of "mormon" nor sort of Christian. Honestly, why would a rational person seek to follow a charaltanic, carismatic, fortune teller, who was constantly on the run from the law for giving false guidance to persons desiring to bet upon local horse races.

Smith supposedly received a divine revelation from "Jesus" himself. This prophesy, delivered by Moroni, a "mormon" angel who supposedly recorded the holy writ of mormon on a set of metalic plates burried on a hillside in up-state New York. Smith supposedly received a revelation as to where these plates were hidden. He was instructed to approach the revealed location only during the dark of the night, in a carriage painted black and pulled by black horses. Why black? God is a God of light, where He Is there is no darkness.

Now comes the big problem, these plates were supposedly written in Egyptian not in Hebrew, the language of Israel, not in Greek, the language of the New Testament, nor in Aramic, the language of the common Jew during Jesus time on earth.

Joseph Smith claimed to be the only one able to decipher the heiliographics (from the Egyptian) but he had to do so using a pair of "stone" spectacles that only he had the abiliity see through. Amazing talent wasn't it? Not only could he see through stone he could read and simultaneously translate from Egyptian, but only if the "plates" were placed in the bottom of his upside-down hat! I guess he replaced the rabbit.

Another unusual talent Smith demonstrated was that the book of "morman" was translated from the original Egyptian into 1607 King James English. It does seem strange that since Smith's discovery supposedly occurred eiher in 1830-1831, the more modern Victorian English was not used. King James English sounded more scriptual I suppose.

The practice of polygamy was adopted as "the principle" shortly after Smith's wife caught him in bed with a woman, not his wife, having sexual intercourse. I can easily see how Smith would suddenly decide that polygamy was proper and scriptual.

Now comes the question, are mormons Christian? They say that they believe in Jesus, but to them God and Jesus are both just men, not Divine. The mormons lay claim to being personal candidates to become their own God and Jesus. Their goal is to have their own universe populated with their descendents and the descendents of others who are baptized as mormons, even they are long dead and burried and didn't make the decision themself. God, made in the form of man is an idol. Enough said.

Contrary to some contributors to the "blog" some Eldoraians do have some idea from whence this all came. Incidently, if you want to speak fluent West Texan, El Dorado is the mythical city of Gold for which Coronado, he was that Spanish explorer who discovered the Grand Canyon, and that pronunciation is used primarily by those individuals who do not live in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas or Arkansas. In those states the name of the town is pronounced just as it is commonly pronounced in Eldorado. For the un-educated, slow of wit or not a proponent of local correct pronunctiation, it is as follows: El (sounds like the letter "L"), do, (sounds like a female deer "doe"), ray (sounds like Ray Charles first name, Ray), do (repeat female deer sound "doe"). Now that's not so hard is it? L-doe-Ray-doe, or duh, if you're an Aggie! So...if it your intent to speak ill of us... at least have the grace to give the proper prounciation.


Anonymous said...

Hey Mugwump,I'm just getting over Warren,now this.It feels like what I would imagine quitting smokeing,drinking and coffee all at the same time would feel like to you.Maybe you have a softer version of what you just said for us sucklings.
I got the "doe, ray, me, fa, so, la, te, doe"part down good though.

Feeling stupid in Colorado City.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mugwump,

You have done your homework on Joseph Smith!

The whole Joseph Smith story is so ridiculous many people will think you're making this up, but it's all true!

Anyone out there read that book "The God Makers"? It also tells about Joseph Smith and his "revelations", along with the inner-workings of the Mormon church. It was written by an ex-Mormon higher up...

Anonymous said...

Here's an interesting link I found on the internet

This website is about the LDS church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) in San Antonio, Texas having a open house for the general public to tour their new temple. Unlike Jeffs FLDS who hides in a compound with a secret temple. Perhaps ole Jeffs is jealous of the LDS folks new temple, perhaps Jeffs wants to show them up, in any case saw Jeffs temple on news, not as nice as the LDS San Antonio, TX temple, guess the LDS have better architects.

The LDS folks in San Antonio, TX plan to have their temple open for public tours from 16 April 05 to 21 May 05

Never have seen the inside of a Mormon temple, perhaps I will get the chance to go as it is about a 4 hour drive from home.

Anonymous said...

from Anon 3:50pm...

Actually I'm not Warren or FLDS, or Centennial Park, or Bountiful. but the truth remains the same... If you want to be your own island and pretend you can follow God however the hell you want to w/o priesthood authority, that's your business, but it isn't going to get you too far. God has always had a priesthood head on the earth who is authorized to teach, preach and proclaim the gospel, and administer in it's ordinances. Just cause where ever you came from some false prophet screwed you over, doesn't mean the true prophet isn't out there. But I guess your to busy enjoying Babylon to really care.

Anonymous said...

To feeling stupid in Colorado City,

There are many historical records, published by contemporaries of Joseph Smith. The one I found to be most enlightning was written by Alexander Campbell. This article was written just following the first edition of "The book of mormon" by Joseph Smith. Campbell's article was an indictment of the false claims of Smith as recorded in his book of mormon.
The following are articles and/or references to articles of Mr. Campbell regarding his exhaustive analytical study of Smith's writings, dates, perposterous claims and teachings.

"Delusions"appeared on February 10. 1831, with introduction by Joshua V Hines, 8/14/1832. Other studies were included in the "Millenial Harbinger" Vol 6 No 1 dated Jan. 6, 1935; New Series Vol III No. IV

Campbell gives an in depth study of Smith's claims, cross references the claims against an historic time-line. He goes into much greater detail than I attempted to do in my "blog." You and all your brethern would do well to go on line to the Abilene Christian University library, search for the writings of Alexander Campbell. Find his articles regarding Smith and the mormon activities concurent with Campbell's life. These articles are quite enlightning.


Anonymous said...

I can understand why Campell would write a disparaging piece on the Mormons...he lost his best preacher and missionary to them, a man by the name of Sidney Rigdon. Moral of this... before you go believing anything ever written, do your homework ;)

Anonymous said...

Responding to the question:
"How does a mormon (or LDS) believe one is saved? In other words, what is the mormons' view for the plan of salvation? What does the relationship with Christ look like after that occurs?

If you are going to tell me it's the same as other Christian beliefs, then what is the purpose of the Book of Mormon?"

As an active member of the LDS faith, I feel qualified to answer this question. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that salvation, or the opportunity to return and live an eternal life with our Father in heaven and his son Jesus Christ is afforded by the atoning sacrifice that Christ made while on the earth.

No unclean thing may dwell in the presence of God, and since all of us sin, this separates us from God. Christ came to earth and made an expiation (payment or atonement) for sin. The willing sacrifice of the only perfect man to ever live, the son of God, was the proxy sacrifice acceptable to the Father to pay for the sins of humanity. Through this sacrifice Christ can extend his mercy to us and forgive us for our sins.

While we belive that resurrection and judgement will come to all men, regardless of their acceptance of Christ while on the earth, we believe that salvation, or eternal life with the Father requires one to follow a certain pattern of life. One must accept Christ as their savior, be baptized, and live their life in accordance with Christ's teachings.

Naturally, we will be unsuccessful in doing this perfectly, but a life of constant repentence and good deeds will in the end qualify one to return and live with the Father.

Now, the purpose of the Book of Mormon in all of this is exactly like the bible. The Bible is the writings of prophets throughout the ages who lived in the eastern hemisphere. They left a record of the religious and social history of their people. The Book of Mormon is a record of God's prophets who lived in the Western Hemisphere (north and south america) from 600 BC to 400 AD. In the same way as the bible, these prophets recorded their religious and social history. We can now read these records to understand the purpose of Christ's ministry, understand the gospel that he taught, and find the path of salvation which will lead us back to him someday. The Book of Mormon becomes a supplemental and supporting text to the bible. It is not to take the place of the bible, but is to stand side by side in testifying that Jesus is the Son of God.

Hope that clarifies it for you. More info and the text of the Book of Mormon can be found at http://www.lds.org. Other questions can be answered by talking to a member of the LDS church, visiting one of our meetinghouses which generally operate on Sunday mornings, or by stopping a set of our missionaries on the street.

Anonymous said...

Have any of Joseph Smith's "revelations" ever been backed up with historical evidence as have the accounts in the Holy Bible?

Anonymous said...

I challenge any and all mormons who read this to take your "church authorized" copy of the King James version of the Bible and compare it to any King James version published away from mormon corruption. What purpose would all of these publishers, and there are hundreds world-wide, to deviate so far from Smith's version and yet remain true to each other otherwise.

Smith's companion to mormon is lacking in authenticity and beleivability.

Our common "blogger" makes the point well. There is great historical proof of the Bible as originally published in English by Wycliff and the lack of such proof in Smith's myths and fairytales.

Saul's consultation with the witch, to revive the spirit of Samuel for the purpose of council with Saul was the final straw that led to the absolute destruction of Saul's family line as Kings of Israel.

Both Leviticus and Deuteronomy confirm that the ONLY priestly line is of the lineage of Aaron. Not even Jesus could have served God as a priest because his earthly lineage was of the house of Judah.

Smith's naming of former Jews as priests directly slaps God's choice of Aaron's house in the face. To build a temple? In America? Where is the mountain of Moriah, the place of Abraham's sacrifice of Issac, the place where Jacob saw the vision of Heaven and David's threashing floor located in America. It can't be symbolic. It is a specific geographical location, not located in the western hemisphere. It is the mountain upon which the "Dome of the rock" is currently erected. It is not located in St. George, Salt Lake City, Nauvoo or any other spot on this planet.

Upon that isolated spot was the veil of the temple rent at the giving of Christ's precious blood in atonement of man's sin. The price has been paid, in full, your only choice is to accept or reject that atonement given once for all.


Anonymous said...

God-Makers was written by an excommunicated member, for the sole purpose of making money and obtaining fame.


Anonymous said...

...and that differs from Warren Jeffs how?

Anonymous said...

Regarding Alexander Campbell's best preacher Sidney Rigdon please mpte tjat I am neither a proponent of Alexander Campbell nor an opponent. I do recognize scholarship. Rigdon's leaving Campbell's fold has nothing to do with the facts in the case. Stick to the facts and quit trying to change the subject. I had a relative present at the Carthage Jail on the day Smith was shot. This relative told his grandson that he had personally shaken the hand of the man who pulled the trigger. At the moment of his death Smith cried out a Masonic call for help. The mormon church is established a lot like the Masonic lodge. If you want to advance you must pay a handsome fee in order to the be advanced to the nezxt level. Follow the money and find out that the love of money is at the root of all morman activity. Hoodwink your poor gullible membership at every turn of the road and just maybe they can perform enough good works [in the eyes of the profit (spelling is intentional)], and maybe you will get a Temple recommend and can advance to your goal of Celestial Heaven and being God. Oh the foolishness humans embrace in an effort to ensure their own immortality.

Do I wonder about the end of days? No! My soul is in the hands of Jesus and, according to your own teaching all Christians will gain at least a place in Terrestrial Heaven. That's where Jesus is, according to your own teaching. If Jesus is there, as you teach, I'll there and be perfectly happy. I have no desire to become god of my own world. I already know God of the Universe, who is Spirit, not a man, what more could I want?


Anonymous said...

It seems strange that every time one of your "ex-members" speaks out against mormonism, ya'll try to explained him/her away as "someone who is trying to make money".

"The God Makers" by Ed Decker and Dave Hunt is an excellent book, which gives a very comprehensive look at the Mormon faith, starting with Joseph Smith's "revelations".

As long as you're going to be directing people to the LDS website (propaganda) and encouraging them to read the Book of Mormon (false), I will also encourage the reading of other materials, such as "The God Makers" and "Under the Banner of Heaven".

Heck, just read the Bible!

If your Mormonism can handle the scrutiny of these books (especially the Bible), then you can welcome all your new converts with open arms. I would like for the viewing public to consider themselves warned - Mormonism as a whole is a cult, not just FLDS.


Anonymous said...


You are a thinking person and have obviously done your homework!

Thanks for shedding some light on a few things for me.

Anonymous said...

God-Makers is propaganda on the other side. It is a excellent book for people from the same idealogical leanings. It is far (far) from balanced.


Anonymous said...

In my humble opinion...

Ed Decker is an theological thug. I have heard (on the net) some of his "sermons."

They are far from a loving witness of Christ. They are a Bible-thumping, pulpit pounding, tirade.


Anonymous said...

If I may continue to humbly opine...

Any sect, religion, cult, (whatever you prefer) ect. professing a belief in a Christ, be it Jesus, Dionysis, Horus, or any other Savior can be called Christians.


Anonymous said...

If you don't think people should read "The God Makers", then maybe we should just have them read the Bible BEFORE reading the Book of Mormon - something most mormons don't bother to do.

If they did, they would notice the GLARING mistakes and contradictions in the Book of Mormon.

-just call me "ex"

Native Texan said...


The most obvious question would be: have you read the book (God Makers)?

just curious

Anonymous said...

Mugwump was never a mormon nor will ever be. Attempting to lay my opinions as having come from a former mormon won't wash. If it ain't from the Bible, no credit is due.


Anonymous said...

With humble opine...I must seriously disagree.

Dionysis, Horus, Baal or any other pagan diety cannot meet the criteria of Savior. Only Jesus is the Christ, prophesied by various individuals for over 2000 years prior to his birth. Gabriel announced his name to Joseph.

Only Jesus lived, healed the sick, caused the lame to walk, fed the thousands and caused the dead to rise. For this reason, and because his ministry was seriously affecting the profitible sales of merchandice within the Jewish Temple, (Restored under the direction of Ezra and improved by Herod the great), was he falsly accused, tried illegally, beaten and crucified on Calvary's cross as propituation for the sins of man. Even upon the cross Jesus begged the Father to forgive his executionists. Only Jesus arose from the tomb on the third day, appeared over a period of forty days to upward of five-hundred people. Only Jesus asscended into Heaven before the eyes of those same believers. And, only Jesus promised to return again at a time known only to His Father. Jesus IS the Christ.


Anonymous said...


Of course you are welcome to have your opinions about one of the authors of "The God Makers". However, it is an extremely well documented and well-researched book.

That being what it is, I hope those of you who are searching will at least skim this book. If it is false, you should be able to recognize it right away. One thing is certain. The Mormons do not want you to know everything their faith entails up-front. It would be too much for any thinking individual to swallow. Rather, they like to dispense their faith in small, digestable amounts. As you prove yourself "worthy" by being a good (loyal) Mormon, you get more and more information - kind of like Masons.

That is why this book is a good resource (and one the Mormons would like to bury). It tells you everything up-front.


Anonymous said...

Read the book, saw the campy movie...

Well researched as it may seem, it is done so with a pre-concieved conclusion.

Also, the story of a Savior, a Christ, Immaculate Conception, is found in many cultures across the globe and throughout time...


Anonymous said...

I realize the LDS Church has it's fair share of propaganda on it's website as well.

It makes sense that a faith group who believes in Christ (works v grace debate aside) would obtain "salvation" through him...that is what he taught.


Anonymous said...

excerpt from Pagan & Christian Creeds

At the time of the life or recorded appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, and for some centuries before, the Mediterranean and neighboring world had been the scene of a vast number of pagan creeds and rituals. There were Temples without end dedicated to gods like Apollo or Dionysus among the Greeks, Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persians, Adonis and Attis in Syria and Phrygia, Osiris and Isis and Horus in Egypt, Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians and Carthaginians, and so forth. Societies, large or small, united believers and the devout in the service or ceremonials connected with their respective deities, and in the creeds which they confessed concerning these deities. And an extraordinarily interesting fact, for us, is that notwithstanding great geographical distances and racial differences between the adherents of these various cults, as well as differences in the details of their services, the general outlines of their creeds and ceremonials were—¬if not identical—¬so markedly similar as we find them.
(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.
(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.
(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.
(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.
(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer.
(6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.
(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.
(8) They rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world.
(9) They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism.
(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.

read more here

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Dear 10:48 anon,

Where did you read that "God has always had a priesthood head on the earth who is authorized to teach, preach and proclaim the gospel, and administer in it's ordinances."?

Maybe that's just Mormon talk, but I can tell you it's not out of the Holy Bible. Am I missing something? Explain this using the Holy Bible for us non-Mormons. If your faith squares up, it should agree.

Anonymous said...

Hey 10:38 and 10:40 pagan dude,

Could we please stay on topic here?

Anonymous said...

Bible...word of God.

..filled with polygamy.


Anonymous said...

pagan dude here...

srry saw other posts

got confused.

Anonymous said...

Bible....Word of God

....polygamy recorded, not endorsed

.....murder, rape, and incest recorded, also not endorsed.

Anonymous said...


Sorry, pagan dude,

my mistake -

preach on....

Anonymous said...

This topic may be as interesting as the others, now that I took a peak. The similarily is extremely close between the FLDS and LDS and yes I have both text. I have the photo reprint of the Book of Mormon from 1830 and Pearl of Great Price 1851, with the current revisions as well. In my sweaty little palms I have Rulon Jeffs 1994 "In Light and Truth" which quotes not only FLDS leaders, but Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball. The FLDS text clearly states the same revelations as that of the mainstream church. I have heard the debate and have been challenged by those who clearly have not read the FLDS theology books.

Minor points maybe, but polygamy, blood atonement, racial seperation and afew other points seperate the two beliefs. A good friend who was LDS gave me the same explanation that of Cain received a mark when Abel was slain. The origin of the black or dark race came from the same basic teachings.

When I was instructed to contact the mainstream church regarding the attorneys who run interference for Warren on legal issues, a former Utah senator directed me to Mike Otterson first and assured me the LDS church would share my concerns. This dialog by phone and email relayed information of a critical nature to Bruce Olson, Dale Bills and Bill Evans with Mike Otterson as the conduit for these concerns. The call to Otterson was on October 21st of 2002 and was recorded, as was the call to the former Senator.

People who debate what the LDS church knows or doesn't know, are not sitting on recorded phone conversations with such administrative offices. You are welcome to GOOGLE search these names.

I have to agree with the FLDS here that the two beliefs are more similiar than different. Since the FLDS books are copyrighted and clearly use the text of the early Mornon writings, especially the original Mormon books per 1830 and 1851, I wouldn't be so inclined to debate them on this comparison.

The reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints removed D & C 132 not intending to cite it in this life or the next. As the main church chose to retain it, its led to speculation that someone considered decriminalizing polygamy eventually. When Zolman a former Utah legislator proposed it, the idea was taken seriously, but about the same time Marry Ann Kingston was beaten uncontious by her father when she refused to be her Uncles 15th wife and from that day forward, the climate to legalize it has changed.

If any one really wants to debate the two religions side by side, I have about 20 of the hard back books published at Twin City Publishing in Hildale and having read them, who ever believes they are not the same will have to rebuke both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith as both are well quoted. When Leroy Johnson and Rulon Jeffs stated their belief it was often side by side with those of the early church and was a mirror of the same sermons.

Had the mainstream church objected to the parrellel, they should of challenged the use of the text in 1994 and or 1997, but in truth that would of been nearly imposible. Unchallenged and many passages virtually the same, we have to assume they were aware of the similiarities.

In poling several raised in the FLDS most considered themselves the true Mormons, some refered to this by name, others assumed it. Being that one follows the literal translation its hard to now accept the recent news releases that are trying to distance the connection and name sake.

Debate me if you dare, but does any one really want the text made public in a forum? Seperating the names is a legal issue of intent, but as a matter of theology, one is according to the text closer to the founders intent as it was published in the original versions.


Anonymous said...

Abraham...old school prophet of God took multiple wives, God told him too. Isacc was from a plural wife was he not?

Anonymous said...


Site the scripture where God told Abraham to take multiple wives......take your time - you'll need it.

Anonymous said...


Genesis 16 Abram (Abraham) is given Hagar as wife. (wife 2)

Genesis 17:4 God says...thou shalt be a father of many nations.

Only after God tells Abraham such, is Sarai (Sarah, wife 1) able to bear Isaac. (with whom the covenant is established, 17:19)

Native Texan said...

Genesis 16: Sarai (not God) gives Hagar to Abram as his wife (see vv.1-3).

The other verses state nothing about God instructing Abraham to take multiple wives to accomplish His purpose.

Abraham was briefly a bigamist, not a polygamist. This union was not one that God instructed, but rather one that Sarai forced due to her lack of faith (Genesis 16:2).

Did nations come from Abraham? Yes. God's chosen nation Israel was promised to Abraham through his wife Sarai while he was married only to her(Gen 12:2 - note: God promised a great nation, not nations), and fulfilled only through her (21:1-2, 12). God later graciously promised to make Ishmael into a nation because he was Abraham's offspring (Gen.21:13).

I believe you are editorializing when you say, "Only after God tells Abraham such, is Sarai (Sarah, wife 1) able to bear Isaac. (with whom the covenant is established, 17:19)"

Anonymous said...

Then "briefly a bigamist" is OK with God, because Abraham was rewarded with everything he was promised.

Native Texan said...

None of us are perfect examples of obedience (only Christ was that), yet God choses to bless us because it pleases Him.

You still fail to back up your claim of "God told him to" in your 11:15 post.

Are you able?

Anonymous said...

The following chapter of Gen. "An Angel of the Lord" instructs Hagar to return and submit herself to Sara (& by proxy Abraham) because he is the patriarch of many nations through Isaac & Ishmael.

It's my understanding that God's messengers only do what they are told by Him.

Native Texan said...

You are tap-dancing.

God may have used an angel as a messenger to instruct Hagar to return, but you still fail to show that God instructed Abraham to take Hagar as a wife in the first place!

Once Isaac was weaned, Sarah sent Hagar and Ishmael away (and even called her fellow wife a "slave woman" - sounds like bigamy was working out well). Abraham was completely caught in the middle and God told Abraham to let them go. God then promised to make a nation of Ishmael.(Genesis 21:8-13)

You are using assumption when you say that the practice of polygamy was why God chose to bless them. You are trying to see what you want to see instead of what's there.

All I'm trying to prove is that the practice of polygamy is not God-instructed. I am not a Mormon, so I do not believe Joseph Smith's revelations were God-inspired. One way I feel it is obvious is in the practice of polygamy. This is something Joseph Smith held up as a principle of faith, yet you will never find God instructing anyone to live this way in scripture. I feel this is one of many ways in which the Mormon doctrine conflicts with God's Word.

Anonymous said...

Interesting using church to define state. If I were agnostic or atheist this argument would not hold water. Arguing religion requires the same blind faith that Warren uses to defend his point of view.

Are either of you Hebrew? The old testament was as much a history of a people as is the FLDS text or Doctrine & Covenants. Religion becomes a matter of interpretation, while I was raised Baptist, my church used the King James Bible to interpret a literal hell. When I grew up I purchased the New Testament in Greek as it was written. Since the King James was translated from Latin, the Latin from the original Greek, it stands to reason that the Greek was a closer translation to the truth. Whether you read the original Hebrew text from the Old Testament or the Greek from the New Testament, translation still varies between the many world religions.

Defending polygamy based on the Old Testament, relies on the Hebrew culture. There were Jews and Gentiles in the examples used in the Old Testament, but today we don't buy into all of the culture of that day. We no longer stone a man to death, I imagine some in polygamy still eat bacon and if the true test of the prophet were exercised today, Warren would already be dead. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a prophet of God could only be wrong once!

Justifying belief on a distant culture and doing it buffet style, picking and chosing which passages you want to adhere to is not the best defense. You can take the Bible literally or symbolically and either way you can not completely reshape it to become absolutes.

Then when you take the cannons, the church chose which books to include in the Bible. The book of St. Thomas is an interesting example of a book that teaches God is within, but the organized church chose not to include it in the Bible we know today. The book of St. Thomas was not the only book not included in the Bible today.

Native Texan said...

If you were agnostic or atheist, why would you care what God thought about this issue?

Making everything relative doesn't take the issue away.

One either believes or does not believe that God's character is immovable. I, for one, would not follow a God who changed His mind or contradicted Himself. If there are other books that should be included in the Bible, (if they are accurate and true) I believe they will be consistent with what is already there.

You can also either believe or not believe that Joseph Smith's teachings square up with what is there. I, for one, do not.

Anonymous said...

To 9:54 PM:

How wise you are. The more that the ancient texts (in their original language) are analyzed, the more the agenda of the Nicean council of bishops is called into question.

Check out the Gospel of Philip. It shows a much more intimate relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene than any Catholic celibate priest would ever want to admit to. And after all, the Catholic bishops were the ones who edited and determined which gospels to include and which to reject.

For a more in depth study on the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, I refer you to Margaret Starbird's scholarly work, "The woman and the Alabsaster Jar." (http://www.telisphere.com/~starbird/)

Anonymous said...

9:54 and 7:55 are the same blogger.

Anonymous said...

To 7:55 AM:

I believe the correct URL is:


Anonymous said...

To 9:54 PM:

By the way, have you read any of Starbird's work? She's obviously done a lot of research on the "Sacred Feminine."

Tell us more about the Gospel of Thomas and as you put it his philosophy of internalizing God.

Have you read any of the Gospel of Peter and some of the other Apocryphal works, the infancy gospels for example?

Men In Black said...

This is cute;

Anonymous said...
9:54 and 7:55 are the same blogger.

8:39 AM

I was the 9:54, but I have no idea who 7:55 is?

What can I say I have a curious mind, when I heard of the other books I had to find some and read them. I think the organized church of the day was very selective and having a relationship outside of the organized church challenged the authority of the day. They were also biased against women as Mary to had authored a book.

From a historical perspective this is all interesting, but I would not use it as the arguement for my urges. Joseph Smith in the 1830 version of the book of Mormon was not supporting polygamy, just the opposite and I have to tell the early book is thin. There have been over 2500 changes and additions sine the original text.

By 1851 Pearl of Great Price recognized polygamy, but its been nearly 7 years since the prophets death. Secret writings were the only explanation that could be used. Even then, he states no marriages to sisters or mother/daughters, but Joseph did both. Lest we forget the partridge sisters. Sarah Kimball, was 14, shy of her 15th birthday, with coinsides to the desired age today.

The great mystery that so few scholars address is Joseph Smith's progency. I debated the wife aspect with Krakauer and there are several sources and numbers, but including Emma Smith I came up with 48 women supposedly married to Joseph. You would think the offspring would be huge, wouldn't you? Lets see who here can answer that riddle?

The point is I hear folks using Abraham to defend polygamy in the United States today. Under british common law, which is where much of our laws were adopted from, the penalty was death. So between settling in America and drafting a constitution where was it ever legal? Stating the territories is not correct, in the absence of enforcement it got practiced, but it was never legal here in the US.

There is a incorporated "Church of Satan" they use to have a center in Big Bear California. Had they been permitted to practise human sacrafice, would that be an arguement for freedom of religion? I think history might tell us of abuses as absurd, but because it existed within a culture god fearing/believing or not, it does not justify the behavior today.

Yes its practised elsewhere, but daily I get news articles where other countries are questioning both the need and the human rights aspect of the practise. If its based on logic or science and not on religion, then why not one woman and 3 or 7 connected husbands, that would be equality, wouldn't it?

I had this discussion with someone FLDS already, but where religions were man made or defined, the road only goes one way. When might was right, the strongest made the rules! Where there is a dictator, he or she makes the rules. The golden rule, he with the gold, makes the rules!

This is about power and the abuse of power and to the shame of my gender the rules were established for men. The next debate becomes our animal nature verses civilization.

OK! Go ahead and Flame me...


Native Texan said...

Men in Black,

The anonymous blogger and I were debating the legitimacy of polygamy as it relates to the Bible (to be more specific, Genesis-Revelation).

The main reason we were confining our debate to the Bible is because it is common ground for us (unlike the Book of Mormon, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) and because it is the grounds upon which the blogger attempted to defend polygamy.

The other books that you claim are part of (but not officially included in) the Bible don't really matter because we were talking about Abraham, whose life is documented in Genesis.

MrT said...

MIB are you seriously against abuse or are you looking for a pedestal to stand on in the wake of the mad man we are currently facing with Warren Jeffs?

You argue so adamantly against polygamy that it seems as if you cannot find a tragedy to blame on polygamy then you create one. Are you trying to help victims or create them?

I appreciate your posts as it has contained information I had not considered or known of.

Are there not abuses in all societies? Is not the current state of the American society with divorce rates well above 50% an abuse to the children in those families also? Or will you make excuses and acceptance for them because they are not polygamous?

What about unwed mothers? Are fathers really unimportant in your society?

I am not going to go further comparing against more extreme sexual lifestyles. The point is that every society has its benefits and drawbacks which include abuse.

Abuse should not be acceptable any where. There seem to be some areas where one persons desirable lifestyle or reality is in someone else’s opinion an abuse.

It sometimes seems that you want them out of the frying pan into the fire. The world is not a friendly place.

I hate to say this because I have paid a hard price for the knowledge and experience I have. Sometimes I wish I could go back to the lifestyle I had growing up. Some say ignorance is bliss. I can relate to that.

The world I have had to face in leaving the FLDS religion is a much more harsh and abusive world than anything I ever experienced here.

I do cry out against underage marriages. If I had my way a women would have to be at least 25 and have a 500 question test administered to them before they were allowed to live polygamy. I say this because mature, understanding adults should be allowed to live their beliefs as long as it is not harming others.

I just want people to understand what it is that they believe. Once again the extremes that we see today has to do with a manipulative mad man, not religion.

Today is a different time. The Religion and people I once knew growing up do not exist anymore in the way I remember. I have to join with you now in doing all that I can to help stop the tyrant Warren Jeffs. I will not, however join a witch hunt against him. I will not sacrifice my principals. I will help stop abuse where ever I see it whether it is here or else where.

I will not sacrifice my integrity and love for the truth with the attitude that the ends justify the means. If I am to be an advocate then I choose to be an advocate for truth.

I know nothing of you as a man or a father etc., so please take to heart your own passions for life and give yourself credit for the good that you have done.

Please do not feel that this is a flame or an attack on you. I simply want to point out what it looks to me in having lived FLDS all my life.

What we see now is not what it was. There has never been a society that some form of abuse has not been present. But if you are going to get up on your high horse crying abuse to a religion that many people have lived clean honorable lives then I have a problem with that.

Are you telling me that my parents abused me by living what they believed? I assure you that they have sacrificed everything for me, probably even more than I deserve. If you asked them how they felt they would do it again given the opportunity.

Are you stepping on the graves and memories of people I love with all my heart and respect? I say this because these people I refer to earned my respect. They walked the talk. I think its down right sad that you would infer that the people and their beliefs that I hold dear to my heart as bad abusive people because of their religion.

In this stage of my life I personally choose not to live the polygamous lifestyle or religion, but I do respect the sacrifices my parents and ancestors have made.

Warren is his own demon, don't make the mistake of comparing the two.

I know you have done some good in your attempt to help people here. I only want to caution that you look at all abuse and not simply follow an agenda against consenting adults following their true beliefs. The ends never justify the means if you are not true in what you do.

There have been wrongs and abuses in the past that have nothing to do with Warren. The one benefit that I see with what Warren has done is that the gloves are coming off. Past lies and abuses that were not resolved and/or have been swept under the rug will now have the opportunity of being brought out in the open.

Now is the time for anyone to step forward and report any crimes or abuses that they have either witnessed or been involved in here. One of the greatest abilities that we have as human beings is taking responsibility for our own actions.

The Mohave County building just south of the MCC College buildings has a full time county officer during the day on week days that will confidently help anyone who asks.

Please be strong and do the right thing.

p.s. I will not apologize for any more long posts. If you are not willing to take the time to learn of other experiences or perspective then continue to live in your own ignorance. Thats your right.

If long posts are a problem then I will simply move on and you can customize your blog to your own fuzzy feeling prefrences.

Anonymous said...

To 9:54pm ...

Hava nagila, hava nagila
Hava nagila venis'mecha
Hava neranena, hava neranena
Hava neranena venis'mecha
Uru, uru achim
Uru achim belev same'ach

Men In Black said...

4:47 PM

Well actually I appreciate the long reply, I was not the one who complained!

The Non Profit I work with is For Kids Sake and my issues are not that of Tapestry's. Under age has always been my focus.

Had I not considered R. Chatwin a victim at some level, I wouldn't have helped him pull off his press conference last year. I think we can agree on what he likely still believes.

The abuse of power is very real and having the depositions and most of the court documents of the 22 family class action lawsuit, there are very clear cut issues that most of the faithful were not privy to.

Old issues that go back to those cheated out of land and money from NATIONAL LAND CORPORATION is an example of concerns that reach beyond polygamy or even childbrides.

I attended Harold Wooley Blackmore's wake in December of 2000 with much respect because I have much of his files and he spent his life fighting the fraud committed against him.

In 1992 a renegade faction with in the group alledgedly sold "pot" to someone and that someone sent me to the FBI to ask for imunity from prosecution. A recorded call, it could be fabricated, but I don't know many who would draw such attendion to themselves.

William Black a fugitive from the law operated Mohave Minerals in open site, did you really think he was seperating gold from iron ore tailings and cinders? Samples of what he was making are in the hands of state agencies and it wasn't gold.

We could talk about those 140 homes reconstructed in Colorado City that came in From George Air Force Base in Victorville, CA. Military spec. in 1959 had these as containing Asbestos. We know how they got there and if non disclosure to those living in these structures, is honest, well its not the honesty I was raised on.

Majestic Trust the Corporation that is or was the umbrella to contain the financial assets. The UEP and the string of evictions?

Beth & Colleen married at what 10 & 11?

Jack Cooke came to my home several times and not only offered his confession of abuse, but shared the abuse of others.

The Sexual abuse file of the Beagley girl lost? I know all about Sam Barlows life as a Mohave County Deputy sheriff for 18 years and as much about the DPS investigation that tried to decertify him.

I understand this is family, but the issues go way beyond anything that can be imagined as merely child brides or polygamy alone.

I met Johnny Jessop, Jack Cooke and others that under the law should be in the states sex offender data base, to simply protect children, but when you do a search of the CC & Hildale zip code you don't see these names.

Is society beyond bad yes! But out here if you abuse your daughters you do serious time in prison. Dan Jr. did 13 days after abusing several daughters.

It gets down to what you know and how long that list is. When a 5 year old girl gets raped, its time to blow the whistle no matter who get hurt.

If you read Krakauers book, that girl forced to marry her biological father was not to far from his FLDS roots, he was from Canada. No daughter at age 12 deserved that.

How about the 2 or 3 days that all the dogs in town were killed? That wasn't a fabrication. There was the dog that killed the toddler, but why were all the others destroyed.

I read the LDS theology today about the reassignment of wives and in the FLDS defense both groups are more similiar than not, no matter how much the mainstream church denys it. This said, in our world, with we as gentiles, our families are what is sacred to us. The idea of reassigning wives and children is unfathomable and it was common with both the FLDS today and the early Mormon church, its in the writings of both.

Because Fred Jessop had the mumps as a child, he was unable to have kids of his own, but was reported to have nearly 100 children. Technically Flora is his step daughter. The need for a huge progency in the next life drives this practise and as we try to find common ground in family values, its beyond our understanding.

This can't all be blamed on Warren, but the lack of oversight created an environment where abuses could occur. Its no longer between the outside world and the FLDS exampled in the Short Creek Raid. The abuse and evictions are crimes between those in control and those at the bottom of the heap. The victims are inside the group. Its not about those outside, but rather people outside who have refused to watch the abuse, attempting to do something about it.

I wish no one ill will, but this is a country of laws and if everyone choses which ones they will abide by, Chaos will follow.

I hope you will continue to speak, hate me if you will, but in time I can offer quotes you can verify. I want nothing more than to see Colorado City rebuilt with equal protection for children and both sexes, equity for the faithful and apostates, but several issues still need to be addressed.

When all can aire their grievances and find equity in some resolve, it will be time to start over with a clean slate.


Anonymous said...

To 3:15 am.I believe Beth was 9 years old when she was married to her father, Uncle Elmer.Coleen was 11 years old.

Anonymous said...

3:49 pm.I heard there was a marriage even younger than Beths and she was a first wife.This kind of stuff was wrong and I don't believe it was ever of God.

Done with it.

Anonymous said...

I hear that there is no official minimum age, just the concept of "deveoped".

Is that correct?

Anonymous said...

The concept of developed didn't even apply in these cases.These were little girls for heavens sake.It makes me ill to even think about it.

Done with it.

Anonymous said...

Flipping through blogs has, interestingly enough, brought me to this site. The title is interesting. I'll say that much.

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I was raised in an Evangelical Free Church. That, for those who don't know, is a branch (and quite a distant one really) off of the Lutheran church. And as I grew up I began to notice the grevious amount of enmity that still exists in my old church toward Mormons. Now, I haven't studied the LDS movement in great depth, but before I say much more, I do want to point out that I do not agree with their view point. And to be honest, it isn't them that I am writing to.
Back to the personal experiences.
I was an exchange student in Sweden for a year, and I met two Mormon missionaries that had moved there not long before (or after maybe) I did. They were really nice guys, really good guys, and they were really fervant in their message.
Now, to accusing evangelical Christians, hear this: When you can display the same amount of fervancy and dedication to your doctrine, then I can not criticize you. Secondly, I am still a Christian, and I love Jesus Christ very much; I believe that he is the Son of God, and part of a 3 in 1 Trinity (one of the greater differences between my faith and the faith of the Mormons). Something that I have learned the HARD way is that legalism is not of God. Christ's command to love God and our neighbors requires respect from us, understanding, and love. Instead of trying to win over whomever it is you are preaching to, show them, or pray that someone shows them, what truth is. We are not enemies. Please don't treat eachother as such.

Also, I wanted to comment on the most very first comment.
Christian means "follower of Christ." Unfortunately for people all over the world, this word is often taken too lightly. What you should ask is "Are Mormon's Christians?" but "Who is Christ to a Mormon?" and get a complete answer, because there is much more of a difference than one might think.

good luck finding the truth. I know I'm still searching.

Anonymous said...

isn't it amazing how anything put on the web has to be true? (it's just gotta be true, I read it myself!!)

Anonymous said...

to, 3:10AM

Maybe you should study LDS (Mormonism) a little closer. You would find that they too believe in a 3 in 1 Trinity, but they call it the Godhead. I am glad that you are strong in your faith of Jesus Christ. Most Mormons have just as strong a faith in him. I hope you find what it is that you are looking for.

Anonymous said...

To the question of "Who is Christ to a Mormon":

Very good question.

To a Mormon (a member of The Church of Jeus Christ of Latter-day Saints) You know...those folks in Salt Lake City, with the missionaries and forever families, and all that....

When you say Christ, we understand it to mean Jesus Christ. Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem, raised in Nazareth, crucified on Calvary, lived approximately 1 ad to 33 ad. His mother was Mary, his adopted father was Joseph. Yes, THAT Jesus.

Jesus Christ is the only begotton Son of God, and the ONLY source under Heaven where man may look to for a remission of His sins. He is our resurrected Lord, and stands at the head of His Church today. (Yes, that one in Salt Lake City). He paid the price for our sins, and through His Atonement and Grace, and through our repentance and obedience to His commandments, we may receive Eternal Life. He is our Saviour, our Redeemer, our Advocate with the Father.

He lived a perfect life, was literally resurrected in His glory, and after His ascencion, He visited His "other sheep", in America, as promised in the Bible. A record was kept, and is available today in the Book of Mormon.

It is all true.

For more information, see those well-behaved boys in white shirts and black nametags that ride their bicycles in your neighborhood.

They have been looking for you.

Anonymous said...

One thing is certain. Those boys in the white shirts and black ties have been looking for you and you should run as fast as you can in the opposite direction!!

They are looking for you because they are trying to earn their salvation.

Strange that they claim to believe that Christ came to die for our sins that we may have eternal life, yet they believe their actions can earn or disqualify them from a seat in Heaven.

Why did God bother sacrificing His only Son if we can get in or out of Heaven based on what WE do???

ps: As much as the "mainstream LDS" try to claim they do not advocate polygamy, check out their beliefs on heaven....it involves polygamy!!

Anonymous said...

You need to find out what you're talking about. Those "boys" aren't going to be saved because they bring others into their church. What would happen to the "boys" who don't go on missions? It's up to the young man and his family whether or not he goes on a mission. Most choose to. But not to buy their way into Heaven. That's just stupid, whoever told you that doesn't know what they're talking about, and you're not too bright for believing it. Why do you think it's not right to be judged by what we do? Christ has died for us, that's true, he took upon himself our sins, that's true also, but that doesn't mean you can steal, kill, rob, lie, etc., to anyone you feel like because tomorrow you can say you're sorry and it's okay 'cause you believe in Christ. That's the problem with the world in general these days, no accountability for anything. Pertty pathetic. Our live is a testing ground to see if we can follow Christ, as well as believe in him. Pretty simple, really.

BTW, for all of you "Mormonism" is a cult people. I left the church for nearly 14 years. Nobody came after me, my family still loved me, and they didn't send brainwashers after me to come back. I came back on my own accord, without any type of harassment or judgment from anyone. I simply love the Gospel and I missed it. And now that I'm back, I'm very happy.

Anonymous said...

Who said anything about killing, stealing, or lying?? Are these sins worse than pride, greed, or malice?

It all boils down to whether or not you believe that your actions can "save" or "unsave" you.

Grace is the only reason any of us are elgible for salvation. Just read Romans and study the life of Paul, an ex-Christian-killer.

The only person who ever lived the perfect life, free from sin, was Jesus Himself. Humans have always been in a state of decline - lack of accountability is nothing new to this earth. To fool yourself in to believing that perfection can be obtained on this earth is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the human nature and our desperate need for God's grace.

Anonymous said...

eligibility doesn't ensure a position. We still have to strive to be the best we know how in order to make it. Even your watered down version of the bible says there is no forgiveness for murder. I can't believe that you can say you believe in Christ and not try to live like him. Those Mormon boys our spreading the word aren't doing it to get themselves closer to God. They are doing it to spread the word to the rest of the world. You gotta admit it takes a lot of guts to do that kind of thing. I know I wouldn't be very good at it.

Anonymous said...

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks! You make a lot of assumptions about me without knowing me, but here goes...

I never said a person couldn't be forgiven of murder - I believe God forgives us of all of our sins - even murder. I would like to challenge you to back up your claim (with scripture) that murder cannot be forgiven.

What I'm talking about is grace. Grace is not about what we're worthy of receiving. If it were, it wouldn't be grace, it would be merit (just look the word "grace" up in the dictionary).

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

My relationship with and love for Christ compell me to live differently, not fear of losing my salvation (Romans 8:38-39). Yes, I do strive for righteousness. I want to please God, but I don't dare connect my righteousness with my degree of salvation - you either are or you aren't saved!

What freedom there is in knowing that Christ has already paid the price of our sins on the cross (Romans 6:23)! Because of what He did for me (and anyone who choses to believe) I can approach the throne of God with confidence (Hebrews 4:14-16).

Anyone who shares the gospel shows a love for his fellow man and must believe that whoever asks shall receive - otherwise, why would they waste their time?

Anonymous said...

To 7:26 PM:

I'm glad you're back and I'm glad you're happy. Keep up the good work--oops. You mean you can be saved without good works? So say the sectarians, but I don't buy it either. I think I'll play it safe like you and be saved by grace and "good works."

Anonymous said...

unfortunately I am not a scriptorian and cannot bring up verses from memory, but what about the degrees of heaven spoken about in the Bible? Are you going to be satisfied with the lowest order? I suppose that someone needs to live there happily, but for me I'd rather obtain the highest degree or the Celestial kingdom.

Anonymous said...

"Celestial Kingdom" is a term used in the Mormon Bible. The concept that there are higher degrees of heaven is also one found in the Mormon Bible; you will not find that in the Holy Bible.

Speaking of Heaven, you also will not find anything about people getting their own planets, becoming gods of those planets, and getting multiple wives to impregnate on those planets in the Bible. Sounds like fun, though!

Talk about playing it safe, I think if I were you I would dig in and find out what God's Word says about salvation and Heaven. Don't be spiritually lazy - it's too important not to understand.

Anonymous said...

To 7:39 AM:

Paul talks about seeing the "Third Heaven" and Jesus clearly taught that, "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you." (John Ch. 14. v. 2.)

If Paul had seen the third heaven and Jesus (speaking in parables) revealed the existance of many heavens (mansions), it stands to reason that salvation does in fact have many degrees of reward. Rewards (mansions) exactly fitted to the level of capacity of each saved being.

But what about exaltation--the "Third" or highest "Heaven" of which Paul speaks?

I address this question to you, my LDS friend, and to no other--What about exaltation to the highest heaven or "Celestial Glory?"

"In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood (meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage); And if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase." (D&C 131. v. 1-4.)

If you will read and study the next section (132) you will have the answer to what cons

Anonymous said...

Th 9:59 AM post is incomplete due to technical difficulties.

Anonymous said...

To 9:59:

It stands to reason that you would be stretching, taking out of context, and making assumptions about scripture. This is necessary in order to make the Mormon Bible line up with scripture. It simply doesn't.

Anonymous said...

There is no "Mormon Bible". The Mormons use the King James Version.

The Book of Mormon is not a replacement for the bible. They go hand-in-hand, and testify of each other.

Anonymous said...

"technical difficulties"?

Is this technical stuff difficult for you?

Anonymous said...

Book of Mormon, Mormon Bible, you get my point, don't you?

They do not testify to one another. You tried to defend your version of Heaven with the Bible, but couldn't even do so completely without quoting the Book of Mormon. If they "testify to one another", then why would you need to twist scripture beyond recognition, then eventually bring in the Book of Mormon in your closing arguments?

Also, you haven't addressed the Mormon version of Heaven. Where in the Bible (KJV or otherwise) are men promised their own planet, complete with multiple wives, etc?

Twist, bend, stretch.....

Anonymous said...

Why in the world would we want to limit ourselves to the Bible when we have other scripture and living Prophets?

We have much to add to what the other Christians know.

If you want to have a common basis of understanding, get with the program. I am not willing to accept the least common denominator as our common basis.

As far as your "Where in the Bible" question, it is not in there. It is also not in any other book of Scripture. You won't hear about it in a Mormon church either. The only place you hear talk about those things is from the anti-Mormons.

Anonymous said...

To correct your math terminology, the Bible (not the Book of Mormon) is our most common denominator. I don't accept the Book of Mormon as credible, therefore it is not something we have in common, therefore it cannot be considered a common denominator. Supposedly, the Bible is something we have in common, though the more this conversation continues the less I tend to believe that.

I believe in the power of the gospel - first and foremost. You have demonstrated to me a lack of understanding of grace - one of the key elements in the gospel. To not understand grace is to not understand Christ's sacrifice. How could you ever make yourself worthy of His death with anything you do here? The best we can do is accept His gift and honor Him with our lives.

I think there is a very good chance you have never read the Bible for yourself. Why else would you characterize the Bible as "limiting"? Quit being spoon-fed. Go out and buy yourself a copy of God's Word and read it. You will be amazed at what you find inside!

As for me, why would I want to read the Book of Mormon? It seems to have confused you.

Anonymous said...

I suspected that you hadn't read it. It is pretty arrogant of you to testify that it is false. You can read it online at www.lds.org. When you've read it, let's talk!

Anonymous said...

As I mentioned earlier, you have given me no reason to be interested. Your theology is about as clear as mud.

At least I'm familiar with the one "limiting" book on which I base my life. You claim to base your life on many books, yet seem to know none.

Get to reading!

Anonymous said...

Knowing scripture will help you recognize a lie when you come across it. If you don't know scripture, you are opening yourself up to all kinds of deception.

Anonymous said...

Pro-Mormon Anon,

Why are you wasting your time, with the anti-s? They will know someday the Book of Mormon is scripture given to us by God, hopefully it's not too late when they do. BTW anti-s, the Bible not the Book of Mormon mentions the 3 degrees of glory (hint: Corinthians)

Anonymous said...

Hi, "anti-mormon" anon here, reporting for duty.

There are two Corinthians and I just did a pretty extensive study of both.

Decode it for me in your own special mormon way. Where do you find three degrees of glory described in your Corinthians, because mine doesn't have it.

It's not that I don't think you can (twist, spin, stretch), it's just that I'm anxious to see HOW you do it.

Anonymous said...

Why all the hostility? Seems to me that self assurance without bullying or arrogance would be more fitting of someone who is confident that they are correct. The name calling and the innuendo are usually tactics of someone who is unsure and maybe a touched frightened.

I can't imagine someone being all worked up about a heaven (or any degree therein) that they have no intention or desire to be a part of. If the idea of having more than one wife is repugnant to someone on this earth, I don't see the afterlife changing his or her mind too much. And if there is a "heaven" for people who practice living their religion in this family arrangement, why would it worry anyone who wants no part of it. It seems to me that one of the Savior's lessons in the parable of the "eleventh hour" is that if we are "paid" what we agreed upon with Him why worry about what someone else is "paid." If you get the "heaven" you want and work towards, why stew about what "heaven" someone else is getting.

I have to wonder if grace applies to fundamental polygamists and LDS Mormons also or does this notion of "working for one's blessings" disqualify them to accept the work of the Savior on their behalf. From the tone of some of the comments, the fact that people might suppose to add "works" to the idea of grace seems contradictory to some. It isn't. The Savior's work was perfect, but to avail ourselves of it, it seems fitting to have, at the least, a requirement to live by His teachings.

Anonymous said...

I think it's the goodness in any person who gets riled up about seeing a large group of people deceived on a grand scheme.

Some people are passionate about the truth and can't make themselves feel "relative" about it.

Also, it's disturbing to see lies aggressively shared and spread by these folks to non-believers.

The truth must be defended and shared just as aggressively when one is aware that seekers are reading this blog!

Who knows, maybe sharing the truth may prompt a Mormon to dig into the Word for him or herself. If that's all that becomes of the debating, then my mission is complete.

Anonymous said...

It is literally funny that you believe "us" mormons, have never picked up scriptures or studied our beliefs from a scriptural standpoint.
You actually believe the millions of people who believe in the restored gospel have never picked up a Bible. It's mind-boggling.

Anonymous said...

To 4:39 pm:

Grace with works--I'll buy that.

Anonymous said...

Dear 7:51,

It's only in giving you the benefit of the doubt that I question whether or not you've read scripture in its entirety. I believe that anyone who has taken the time to do so would see the truth clearly spelled out.

In scripture (when read completely), you will find the perfect balance of faith, grace, and works (the product of the latter two). Different books tend to emphasize different aspects of each. For example, Paul speaks extensively of grace and faith in Romans. If you will read James (only 5 chapters), you will learn how faith without works is meaningless. All work together to help us understand salvation and tell us how we should live.

Yes, I do believe it's possible that millions of people are following a religion without investigating its Biblical truthfulness. I agree - it's mind-boggling.

Many people hear scripture only when it is coming out of the mouths of their leaders, with the purpose of defending their theology. It is the responsibility of every person to investigate the claims of their teachers for truth in God's Word.

Only you know whether or not you have taken the time to do that. You do not quote scripture to defend your position, so I wonder whether or not you have access to it. If you have not taken the time, I would strongly encourage you to pick up a Bible (if the King James is too difficult, try the New King James Version), drop to your knees, and ask God (and God alone), to show you the truth.

He will not disappoint you (James 1:5).

-praying for you

Anonymous said...

9:00 A.M.:

You make the assumption that all fundamentalist are followers of the media creation. We're not.

Anonymous said...

To praying for you:

The Bible has a broad variety of doctine and references, unfortunately special interest's quote only those portions that support their agenda. They ignore portions that offend them or what they don't comprehend.

I like your balance of the big picture of the Bible, which has room for all mankind.

"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." (LDS Articles of Faith v. 11)

Anonymous said...

To 1:23 PM:

By the way, verse 11 of the LDS Articels of Faith works for polygamist's too . . .

Anonymous said...

Dear Praying for You:

I have read the Bible in its entirety and I found in its pages an affirmation of my faith. It is not in my nature to allow someone else to tell me what that faith ought to be, even you. It is insulting for someone to suppose that I would spend a lifetime (my lifetime of which I'm confident that this is not the dress rehersal) practicing a faith that I have not investigated for myself.

My relationship with my Father, with whom I do spend "drop to your knees" time, has also given me experiences that have affirmed my faith in Him as well as the teachings of His prophets, both living and dead. You are correct in this matter, ask in faith, and He answers.

My questions for you would stem from a curiosity and a desire to know more about the human family, rather than an effort to convert you to my belief system. For example, do Christians, outside of the Mormon faith, believe God the Father has the form of a man? Do we have at least one Mother is Heaven or is God wholly masculine? How do you see Heaven operating? Is it a place of winged angels and harps? What do you see as the relationship of men and women in Heaven? What is the purpose of Heaven? Do you believe in a literal translation of the Bible or are some stories allegorical? What do you see as the purpose of religion?

Sorry, I am as curious about you as some of you are about us?

Anonymous said...

Friends and fellow readers,reading your religious debates is quite lively,BUT the Flds"warrenites'dont
accept converts.havent done so sine President Johnsons time.so ,While I am not a fan,or follower of warrenism,the danger of
him decieving,prosletyzing,or leading any one besides his own group,to hell is nil.To get this blog back on topic,I`ll throw my opinion relative to Whether the "Mormons"meaning all the groups
based on Joseph Smith, are "Christians"?That depends on your definition of "Christian".Are all members of all churches "Christian"?

Anonymous said...

To get back on topic...

I personally think Evangelical and Born-Again "Christians" have invented a different Christ than the one in the Bible.

Anonymous said...

Back on topic again;
There are many definitions of
being a "Christian"Evangelicals
have their own.Catholics another,Lds another,Jehovahs Witnesses another.Too the 9-11 Muslim extremists,We are all
Christian.So,as I pointed out in my last post,Eldoradans,Texans,Have
no fear that Warren will try to convert your daughters,Lead them astray.whatever.Warren only has power over his own followers.He doesnt want or accept converts.

onthestreet said...

Street's Reply: To be Christian is to be hated: "Those who live in Christ Jesus SHALL suffer persecution."(The Word of the Lord)

To be Christian is to be meek: "The meek shall inherit the earth." I know one man who is so meek, that he says nothing while all the world spews their venum and their vomit on him. Yet, the viper never harms him.

To be Christian is to be pure: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall inherit the earth." Yet, the whole world is gone a whoring, and calls it good, while blaspheming the bearing of children. "Let the little children come." (The Word of the Lord).

To be Christian is to be many things that he is (WSJ), while the world does the opposite and seals their fate.

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said...

Site the scripture where God told Abraham to take multiple wives......take your time - you'll need it.

4/10/2005 11:28 AM

Street's Reply:
First: It is always left obscure because the world is obscure, in darkness, and not worthy to obtain it, nor to even see it or believe it.

Second: The fact that many prophets having many wives is even in God's word at all (the Bible) makes it God's word (for the elect, not the world, to take many wives),

Third: "Now the angel of the Lord found (Hagar) by the spring of water in the wilderness. . . and said to her: "I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude." (Gen.16: 7, 10). You see, the marriage of a plural wife is not only acknowledged by the Lord, but then 'blessed exceedingly'.

Fourth: The Lord told Adam:
"Multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it". How does anyone replenish an entire planet with one woman? So when your very Redeemer was caught with a multitude of women fondling him so domestically, it was as he said: "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it."

There you have it, the scripture (a small portion of it), where God directed the plurality of wives.

Native Texan said...


I have one question for you. If God needed help populating His chosen nation, then how did He populate the entire earth starting with a monogamous couple - Adam and Eve?

Your ideology contains a humanistic slant.

You see what you want to see in scripture instead of what is actually there.

Native Texan said...

PS: In my view you fall short of proving through scripture that God "directed" polygamy.

Do you think God allowed Paul to go to Heaven? He was single by choice. What about Job? Adam? Isaac? They were all monogamous. I could list others, but you get my point.

onthestreet said...

Native said: I have one question for you. If God needed help populating His chosen nation, then

Street's Reply: Yes, we help him populate, all of us do. He give man that power, the power of creation, albeit after this probation life it will be over for most ("Few there be that find eternal life."). An elect people will go on to a continuation of the seed, an eternal increase.

More specific to you question: No, not starting with Adam and Eve, but EVES. There was Lilleth and Anna and Sarah and many others that ancient Jewish records have documented from the Garden of Eden. See the posts to follow about Adam a monogamist, which follows up your second post here.

You also said: "You see what you want to see in scripture instead of what is actually there."

Yes, I want to see, and so God open mine eyes, and I see. Then, lo and behold, it is actually there. So there.

onthestreet said...

Now, for your second post (toasties): Ah, "In my view" you say. Yes, "you see through a glass darkly" as foretold, and I will prove it through scripture:

You ask: "Do you think Paul will go to heaven? He was single by choice." Ah, in your view.

Here is what Paul actually said (see, proving it through scripture): "Do we have no right to take along a believing WIFE, as do also the other apostles. . . (I Corinthians 9:5). That is Paul's letter to the Corinthians. So that little rascal, he was married, and faithful to the command of God to man, to "multiply and replenish the earth, AND subdue it," your own portion of the earth, your passions). So yes, he went to heaven, because he too (like Christ) fulfilled that first law. "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." Paul said other things that sounded like he might be single, much like Christ did also, because he was speaking to unbelievers. Therefore, that is what he counselled them and put back upon them.

Single by choice? Think again, Native. Then you will be a true native.

onthestreet said...

What! Job a monogamist? Think again

"Then the Lord said to (Job's enemies), take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job and offer up an offering. . .(Job 42:8)(for wives):
-see below for the Hebrew meanings for "Bullock" and "Ram".

Then, all his (kin), each one gave him. . . a ring of gold (wives)(Job 42:11). King James says "earrings" vs rings: "And Abram's servant (in selecting a wife for Isaac), put the EARRING upon her face." (Gen. 24:47)

BULLOCK: Para(Hebrew): To bear fruit. Shuwr: Cow. Sowrah (Sarah): A ring. Baqar: Herd, kine (or kin), GREAT cattle, to inspect and admire, spread out, populate, a fruitful vine. These are the Hebrew meanings of "Bullock". OMG, Job was married, even seven time and seven again (seven bullocks and seven rams). We will examine "Ram" perhaps in another post.

BULLOCK: Bul or bowl (womb), locked or reserved = Bul-lock.
Towr (Hebrew): ring-dove, endearment, order.

Yes, proven by the scriptures, just not "your view" of the scriptures, for you see through a glass darkly and see nothing. The scripture or word of God is in code and parable for a reason, for the benefit of non-believers, lest the light burn them up.

onthestreet said...

RAM: "Israel went up against Judah, and built Ram-ah (I Kings 15:17. . . and they took away the stones of Ramah (v.22). "I can raise up seed from these stones." (IE: Gems or Fems). That is, Israel being against Judah, the Jews were rejected, and harder flint selected to chisle and with which to chisle, as the Master Potter or stone mason moulds the characters for his palace harem. Harem is the name of certain Israelite Priest. It's in the Word of God, if you want to see it.

Anyway, to continue: "And Jacob said to his brethren: Gather
'stones', and Jacob called it GAL-eed (Gen 31:47), meaning
"obstinate, a heap of testimony".
That's what women are, by nature.

RAM: Ayil(Hebrew): Strong support.
Ayilah: Female deer, hind.

Thus the seven bullocks and seven rams that God COMMANDED for Job were nothing more nor less than WIVES.

onthestreet said...

WHAT! Adam monogamist? Think Again:

"And the Lord said: It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helpmeet for him. And out of the "ground" the Lord God formed every "beast" and "fowl". . . (Gen 2:19).

See there! A multitude of helpmeets or wives, at the moment that God said "I will make him a helpmeet. . . and he formed every beast and fowl," different types of women or personalities. And you will even see in the Book of Revelation God relating angels and men as 'beasts'. It's the language of heaven.

First God creates actual animals in the sixth day or thousand-year period (Gen.1:25). Then, in another chapter, and a thousand years later, during his "rest", he creates man and many women, to give him rest(Gen.2:19), his crowning creation for the crowning day of creation. But then what happens? He then creates the elect lady of the Garden or planet, the queen-bee, what he actually calls 'woman', vs beast, for so she was of that higher consciousness of human nature (vs animal nature), and all being preparatory for diving nature. And get this: All this created in practically the same breath (Gen.2: 19-21). He had already created the animals way back in chapter one, or a thousand years earlier (Gen. 1:25). So, in chapter two of creation you have Adam and his WIVES, "for Adam was yet alone," and it was "not good (or God), for man to be alone.

ADAM: Ababuah (Hebrew): To belch forth, an inflammatory eruption." That's a harem, which is decreed by God for elect priests. Harim is the name for certain priests:

(I Chronicles 24:8, Ezra 2:39, 10:21, Nehemiah 3:11, 7:42, 10:5, 10:27, 12:15).

onthestreet said...

WHAT! Isaac a monogamist?
Think Again:

The very name (given by Adam for all things in the Garden) means "many" or Is-sack, his "sack" being full of wives and children. The seed of Abraham is all about 'multitude': "I will multiply you like the sands of the sea-shore and like the stars of the heavens." Will the jealous and insignificant and puny monogamist put up a wall and against God, and dictate to God who he can allow to pro-create with Him? His fires are pretty hot!

ISAAC: Yitschaq (Hebrew): Laughter (as Sarah laughed for seed), mockery (as God mocks the mocker who will dictate who can bear children). "To shine forth (there's the MANY, 'as the stars of heaven'), to spread forth, extend." These meanings are pulled directly from the Hebrew and Greek languages.

Meta-baino (Greek): To move, associate, accompanyment (wives).

Morphosis (as in 'meta-morphosis):
To transform from one to many, or into other forms or beings (WIVES).

Caphas (Hebrew): "To seek, make diligent search." What do men search for? Ummm, WOMEN. Although few there be who are worthy of even one. "To some a hundred, to some sixty, to some thirty, and from him who hath but one (monogamist) shall be taken even what he hath." (Mt. 25:25)
(The Word of the Lord).

"Is-aak Continued:
Katapauo (Greek): To colonize, etc.
Colonizing is done with many families, when it is done right, and God does right. So Is-aac has many WIVES.

All these are literal meanings of the name Isaac, one of the names that Adam gave to all things, for men of plurality shall be heirs of all things. Will Satan rage. No doubt you will.

Paul, Job, Adam, Isaac, single??? You lie, albeit perhaps not maliciously, being ignorant and without knowledge.

And God rebuked Job's enemies, saying: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge"?(Job 38:2).

I encourage you to keep searching. Perhaps this helps you some, to search deeper, to no more mock God and what you know not of. I pray you can do this, my friend.

onthestreet said...

Like you said, Native man, "I could list others, but you get my point." If not, then it is by your own choice for "darkness rather than light." Then, you are not only Native, but savage, and truly on your own.

Rod Serling said...

OMG, somebody help me...my head is about to explode. I read Street's posts and all I hear is:
to do do do to do do do
(insert pingy pangy theme from Twilight Zone here)

Native Texan said...

To Onthestreet:

I began the confusing task of rebutting your "points", but thought better of it. Just keep posting....all over this blog!

Those who read and study God's Word can recognize deception when they see it. You are making stuff up!!

How can I debate points of scripture with you when you are making it up as you go? Heck, I can make stuff up too and try to represent it as fact. Fear of the Lord prevents me from doing that.

Native Texan said...

One more thing onthestreet,

The nature of your name-calling reveals your identity. You posted some hateful things to me on a previous thread.

Do you claim to represent the FLDS in your beliefs and speech?

onthestreet said...

Not so, Native. You are beloved. God loves you, your mommy loves you, I love you, hell even your dog loves you.

Keep smiling, Native, and keep sweet.

onthestreet said...

Native Texan said...To Onthestreet:
I began the confusing task of rebutting your "points", but. . . How can I debate points of scripture. . .

Street's Response: What!
No response? Dumb---Founded?
Ye do very well in fulfilling the prophecy of scripture:

1. Be ashamed and confounded for your own ways (Ezekiel 36:32).

2. Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants, you have ordained strength, because of your enemies, that you may silence the enemy and the avenger. (Psalm 8:2)

3. And Jesus answered and said:
"I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes. (Matthew 11:25)

Native Texan said...


It's not that I'm confounded by your self-proclaimed wisdom. Prior to your entries, I've never seen anyone be so proudly backwards about scripture.

Something I have noticed is a hateful and sarcastic tone in your posts. This is most revealing. "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks". Luke 6:45

I say again, as I did on the earlier thread, that you don't know me. Your assumptions come across as arrogant and rude.

onthestreet said...

Street's Reply: Not confounded? Your confession, not mine. I quote you: "I began the confusing task of rebutting your "points",but. . How can I debate points of scripture. . ." etc. You called it a "confusing task."

Now, as for my "self-proclaimed wisdom," nahhh, I'm not wise. I'm the lease wise. Not "self-proclaiming" at all. Just reading the Word of our Lord. If you find offense in him, then you have a problem indeed.

"Backward about scripture? It's just scripture, in conjunction with the definition of words in the Hebrew and Greek languages. "Salvation is of the Jews," says your Redeemer, and again if you find offense in the language and records of the Jews, then you have a problem.

"Hateful and sarcastic?" Again, just confident of the Word, and glorying in Him. If you find offense in that, then you have really got a problem, my friend. This last post of yours is quite hateful and sarcastic in denying his Word.

Otherwise, answer the questions that you posed yourself: Were Paul, Job, Adam, and Isaac monogamists, or indeed polygamists as your own scriptures proclaim them to be. Cover the points, intelligibly. Don't dust get huffy, and arrogant, and rude, because you're "confused" about this, as you put it.

Let good come out of your heart. There's got to be some good there, and I believe there is.

Native Texan said...


Your intense need to be right distracts from the very thing you claim to represent - God's Word.

I believe God gave us His Word that we may know and understand His character better. Anyone who scratches, scrapes, bends, and twists hard enough can make scripture about whatever they please. That is nothing new to this world. I believe that is what you do (especially in asserting that Paul and Jesus were sexually active).

As for me, I am convicted to pray first, then pick up God's Word and hear what He wants to tell me through the Holy Spirit. Yes, I believe that's how He intends us to use His Word and I feel He's powerful enough to make it so. If we were supposed to have special decoder rings, I believe He would have provided them.

If it makes you feel better about your salvation to think that I don't know God's Word, that I am lost, that there may not be any good in me, that I don't have anything to smile about, that I'm savage, then carry on with your judgments. Like you said, as believers we are promised persecution. I take your insults as a compliment to my faith.

I believe it's God's desire that we all come to a saving knowledge of Him. Though I completely disagree with your view I have never once been so bold as to question your salvation. How could I know whether or not you're saved? That is between you and God.

You obviously think I am lost, but seem to take comfort in your judgment. I can't imagine Christ acting the same way towards a lost person. If you truly think I am lost, then why haven't you tried to share the Gospel with me?

I rest in my salvation, which is between God and me alone. I trust you do the same.

Anonymous said...

Native and Street:

I do enjoy the lively discussion but can you leave the Bible quotes out of it? You will not convince each other of anything.

Street: You are a little too emotional in your responses. It seems you've taken the approach of baffling with bullshit instead of dazzling with brilliance. Stringing a bunch of endless Bible quotes together doesn't make any sense, and your explaiation of the quotes is almost comical.

Native: I'm an ex-Kricker, long time gone. Even though I see no logic in Street's arguements, I can understand why he's so emotional. He's born and raised to believe that he is correct and going to Heaven and every body else is wrong and going somewhere else.

I do think that if both of you sat down over coffee and bounded the discussion to feelings of family lost and friends gained, you would find a lot of common ground.

Native, It would help you understand the ticking bomb inside Street and may be enjoyable if he could leave out the quotes.

Steet, It would help you understand that most of the people raised outside of Colorado City are more like Native than you've been raised to believe and have intense compassion for their fellow man, no matter their ideology. And Street, a million Bible quotes are no salve for a lost familiy wound.

Anonymous said...

To 12:41 AM:

Thanks for your understanding, wisdom and advice to Native and Street. Your post is reflective of the heading of this string, after all, true christianity after the pattern and example of Jesus Christ is the Golden Rule and tolerance for each others beliefs.

knockout said...

You want 'Christian?" What did Christ say? Sorry to be quoting scripture here. I know you 'Christians' hate scripture. But that violent man (the one who knocked over the trade-show booths in the Jerualem Temple), said this: "Think not that I came to bring peace on the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies will be those of his own household." Mt. 10:34

That would be an end-quote, from Jesus Christ. Very FLDS like, no?

Native Texan said...

This sounds familiar to me.

Didn't I read this same exact comment on another thread already?

Onthestreet, is that you?

ATAR_i said...

I agree with Native Texan - I could never judge anyone elses salvation. On the Christianity question - that is another matter.

That I'm aware of, and please feel free to correct me if this is not what you believe. According to the Mormon Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is."

So Mormons do not follow or believe in the historic Jesus Christ of the Bible, but rather in a different Jesus. This is why most Biblical Christians emphatically insist that Mormons are not Christians

And until recently LDS preferred not to be called Christians but 'Saints' until a recent PR campaign.

Joseph Smith said Christian denominations were, "all wrong ... all their creeds were an admonition in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt" (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19)

Native Texan said...


That passage paints a stark difference between the Jesus I have come to know in the Bible (the one and only Son of God, born to a virgin, perfect and without sin) and the one portrayed in the Mormon Book of Discourses you quoted.

What frustrates me is the lip service Mormons give to the role of grace in salvation. You get the impression that they can't say it isn't so because it's in the Bible too much. Just don't live like you might need it or you'll be perceived as "unfaithful" or "taking advantage".

Reading here that they believe Jesus, too, had to go through a process to "arrive at the point where he is" explains to me why His death does not seem like a huge sacrifice to some within the faith. It seems they feel able to reach "the point where he is" if they try hard enough (just as they believe Jesus did)....or maybe I'm reading too much into it.

I don't believe I will ever be able to make myself worthy of the gift of His death, which covered my sins (past, present, and future). That is where God's grace comes in and my salvation could never be earned. Rather, it is a gift from God alone.

Atar_i, are you ex-LDS? You seem to have a lot of LDS information at your fingertips.

ATAR_i said...

Native Texan:

Not at all - raised in a conservative mainstream church. I have purchased some books in order to educate myself. I had never really understood the difference between the two - though I knew there was one.

I arrived in Salt Lake City on my way to the Grand Canyon fully expecting to go inside the Mormon Tabernacle there - as I had heard about it. I arrived during their twice yearly gathering, at least ten thousand LDS faithful on the streets.

There was something so odd in this gathering - and without going into details - my interest was piqued to a degree that I actually purchased the book of mormon and the apostacy - to try and understand better what they believe.

Tell us about you Native.

ATAR_i said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Native Texan said...


I came into a saving knowledge of and relationship with Christ almost 30 years ago. I am thankful to have grown up in a home where scripture was treasured and put to memory. My parents instilled in me a deep need to seek truth out for myself where scripture is concerned and I carry that with me today.

My interest in this topic began when the FLDS group moved to Eldorado. Prior to that I had some knowledge of what the LDS church believed, but had never heard of the FLDS. I've learned a lot through this blog and other research I've been doing.