In researching the group, decades ago, I discovered a few practices that do seriously bother me, but so far, it seems that no one here is aware of them..... so I won't go into it here.
mormons exposed.
- Thread starter justbyfaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Not so much.…. the practices and beliefs I have problems with are still very much a part of ongoing patterns. But, the specifics aren't important, since I am not a member of that church.
I see well I am not interested in knowing what it is....thanks Willie.
The test of any (false) doctrine that you think is proven by scripture is whether it can be refuted by other scripture.
The Holy Ghost teaches us when we compare spiritual thing with spiritual.
That being said, I will say that for the most part every verse of scripture stands on its own as a bastion of spiritual truth.
You claim to not be a member of that church, that's good enough for me (I assume that by that you mean that you also do not believe any of their doctrines). Because of course, we know that all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8); and I know that you wouldn't want to risk that.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I know a bit about the LDS Church....I’ve read the BOM and PoGP and I read ‘No Man Knows My History’ by Fawn Brodie, who got excommunicated later on. I’ve also taking some classes at their university ministry.
Unfortunately, much of what LDS believe seems to be a bit speculative. Being on the same page with other members does not seem to be a priority, so actually determining what the average LDS member believes can be allusive.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
That's a pretty impressive reading list!
As with all groups, LDS Christians aren't clones of one another. You have your core set of beliefs: the most important, most talked about, most focused, most agree upon, etc. You also have fringe/non-core beliefs: topics that aren't core, aren't considered most important, aren't really talked about, and there is a much more diverse set a views on.
Inter-faith discussion (between any two groups) tends to focus way disproportionally on fringe/non-core than the central most important core.
Even Luke 14:26?
KJV
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Remember, if PERFECT means what it says, then HATE is also going to have to mean what it says.)
Just pointing out that we cannot get dogmatic about claiming that there can be no other possible meaning for our favorite verse except the one we want it to say... and then turn around and try to say a verse someone else posts "doesn't really mean what it appears to say."
Last edited:
Several years ago I had in my possession a very large book Shadow and Reality written by a husband and wife team , ex Mormons, Jerald and Sandra Tanner who had done an incredibly detailed investigation into the history of Mormonism, and the principle books of the faith, the book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price and one or two others. They pointed out the many contradictions, amended teachings, revisions, and cover-ups from the original writings and the contrasting behaviour of those involved in the church. I cannot now cite any examples, as I gave the book away to a friend who used the book as a basis for a series of tracts and as a help in his own study and investigations into the LDS church. But the picture this couple painted of the church, both then and more recently, was not pretty, but one of duplicity, guile, hypocrisy deceit and corruption.
While not taking every claim at face value, the whole tenor of the information revealed a picture to make one peculiarly reluctant to commit oneself to a church founded on so many examples of duplicity and obfuscation, particularly regarding the claims to authenticity by the church to the book of Mormon and some other claims to fame by Smith himself.
While not taking every claim at face value, the whole tenor of the information revealed a picture to make one peculiarly reluctant to commit oneself to a church founded on so many examples of duplicity and obfuscation, particularly regarding the claims to authenticity by the church to the book of Mormon and some other claims to fame by Smith himself.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Yeah - it is Jesus’s invitation to Jewish people to question the doctrines of the ancestry - instead of just going through the motions simply because they were Jewish
The Tanners are a downright HORRIBLE source of "information".
I don't care if anyone disagrees, agrees, whatever with any beliefs (mine or someone else's). But a person should at least seek out good information from high quality primary sources on the subject. That's just basic scholarship.
I agree. Going to haters of something, is a sure way to get prejudiced information.
Yes, going to 'B' who is "A"'s enemy is not always a great way to discover the truth about "A". But in some cases there is more than just hearsay and opinion to be found. With the Tanners, while their methods may not have been exemplary, their research has been, and even the LDS church admits that. It has forced the church to face themselves, and not always with the greatest of results.
On that you and I will just very much disagree. Axe-grinders (like the Tanners) don't yield good results. I'm sure there's some anti-SDA folks out there that likewise give horrible info.
For example, from the web site founded by the Tanners, we have an in depth and what seems to me a very fair explanation as to what the LDS teach regarding the question, was God once a man?...something brought up previously in this thread. The conversation can be viewed here...
Does the LDS Church Still Teach That Heavenly Father Was Once a Man?
Does the LDS Church Still Teach That Heavenly Father Was Once a Man?
Similar threads
