Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

There are 32098 comments on the CNN story from Oct 12, 2011, titled Who says Mormons aren't Christians?. In it, CNN reports that:

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is an award-winning comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CNN.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22896 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to claim that the Catholic church rewrote the NT, provide something besides your conspiracy theories. There is no record of Jesus being married.
For many centuries priests were allowed to marry until the 4th century.
lol...you really need to quit saying I said what I didn't say. I never said they rewrote the NT. The bishops didn't rewrite the NT. the bishops PUT TOGETHER THE NEW TESTAMENT.
And that was their influence of what was in that compilation of writings and what wasn't included in it. That's a historical fact of what they did to compile what we call the NT.
The early church leaned heavily on things Paul wrote even if what Paul said had some base contradictions with what God said.
The early church founded a requirement to be a priest on this single verse..."1 Corinthians 7:32-34, Paul writes,An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided."
That verse is what kept the first TWENTY POPES CELIBATE AND SINGLE.
That verse though not law, was an unsaid law that the first twenty popes and to many priests to mention went by to hold clergy positions. They believe Jesus was celibate. Regarding marital status, the pope and priests followed Jesus's words literally to be like him, to be single and celibate and that is how a true man of God was, single and celibate, not married. They felt if you married, your eye wasn't single to the glory and purpose of God. They taught this concept as an iron clad law for so long females took on celibacy to Jesus with these priests and pope. Concerning Jesus, they were against marriage in order to be as Jesus.
FYI, look it up. It was a disgrace to be clergy in the early Roman church and be married. Twenty popes and 99% of their clergy for centuries swore off marriage as ill and wrong if you wanted to be a true follower of Jesus. They believed only the weak and weak in faith became married.
From the web...
FIRST LATERAN COUNCIL

The first of these councils was held in 1123 during the pontificate of Callistus II; it was the first general council held in the West. Its most important decision was the confirmation of the Concordat of Worms (1122), which ended the controversy between ecclesiastical and secular authorities over investiture. The council also adopted canons forbidding simony and the marriage of clergymen, and it annulled the ordinances of the antipope Gregory VIII (reigned 1118-1121).
SECOND LATERAN COUNCIL

The second council was held in 1139 under Pope Innocent II (r. 1130-1143). It was called to heal the schism caused by the antipope Anacletus II (r. 1130-1138) and decreed excommunication for his followers. The council renewed the canons against clerical marriage and forbade dangerous tournaments.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22897 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Deacons and Bishops where forbidden, and Genesis 2:24 was written long before Jesus was born.
Okay, so let's use your reasoning, not mine.
Deacons and bishops were to be the husband of one wife. That is your claim of the scripture.
Well that verse excludes apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers and seventies as having a choice to have multiple wives instead of just one.
Now what?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22898 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so let's use your reasoning, not mine.
Deacons and bishops were to be the husband of one wife. That is your claim of the scripture.
Well that verse excludes apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers and seventies as having a choice to have multiple wives instead of just one.
Now what?
Straining on gnats isn't going to make you or the LDS church right. People without an agenda to promote polygamy see it clearly.

How do those gnats taste?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22899 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't answer the question. Do you understand? Stupid question on my part, of course you don't understand because you have a pre-set agenda for what you are predisposed to believe of this conversation. And that blinds you as usual.
I on the other hand claim the verse states nothing either way. It states nothing because Jesus didn't answer the question. So you will be forever wrong to think he answered the question when he didn't in fact answer it.
He was asked a question about marriage in the next life. He answered by telling what it was going to be like. Just because you don't want to see it, doesn't make it so.
Jesus stated in the resurrection, IN THE RESURRECTION, there would be no marrying nor being given in marriage. This woman was already marred. Married seven times.
While Crazy isn't part of the dialog, I wish you would talk to him before you answer. Because he said Jesus was only talking about the old covenant. That she wouldn't be married because of that. Now you are claiming she will. Which is it? If she will be married, as you are claiming, why didn't Jesus say that, instead of "you don't the scriptures?" Your answer makes zero sense.
The Sadducee didn't ask if the woman could be married a eighth time in the resurrection. If they had asked Jesus if this woman could be married an eight time in the resurrection, Jesus's response would make total sense because he said..."..they are neither married nor are given in marriage in the resurrection."
THAT ISN'T WHAT THEY ASKED.
They ask who she was going to be married to, he clearly was saying none of them when he said she was going to be "like the angels." The phrase "given in marriage" means there will be no married people.
They asked... "28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her."
Jesus said without answering their actual question..."30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,"
That response DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION OF WHO'S WIFE SHE WOULD BELONG TO OF THE SEVEN BROTHERS BECAUSE SHE MARRIED THEM ALL IN THIS MORTAL LIFE. Get it yet?
Yeah, I get it, none of them. Clear as a bell. He answered their question. He was clearly saying they don't understand what the next life will be like when he said
Luke 20
34 Jesus said to them,The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

They didn't know the scriptures, and neither do you.
I'm not debating eternal marriage and or if it exists.
Then why are you talking about it?
You claim this verse states marriages don't exist in the next life. And your wrong. You will always be wrong.
I thought you wasn't debating it? Do you read what you post?
Jesus said nothing if marriages in this life would continue on in the next life. Jesus said as they are preformed in this mortal life, marriages, in the resurrection marriages will not take place. Jesus was describing a condition of marriage that if you didn't marry in this life and you want to marry in the next life it wouldn't happen.
He was clearly answering their question of who she will be married too:

34 Jesus said to them,The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Learn how to read.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22900 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Deacons and Bishops where forbidden, and Genesis 2:24 was written long before Jesus was born.
<quoted text>
Paul was his chosen representative, if he taught it, it was by the authority of Christ. Jesus certainly never taught the principle of eternal marriage, the plan of salvation, or the need for a temple endowment, yet you swallow those teaching hook, line, and sinker. No one ever was taught that polygamy was a requirement for their salvation.
I want you to remember your own very words as I write the following... "Paul was his chosen representative, if he taught it, it was by the authority of Christ."
Jesus taught Paul ONLY deacons and bishops were to have one wife.
Jesus didn't teach Paul that apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors and seventies had to have one wife.
That means Jesus left it open to the disciple holding one of those positions the right to marry a single wife or several wives because he didn't make the same marital status for them as he made for deacons and bishops.
And Jesus set forth the offices and positions to be held by his disciples, not Paul. Jesus set forth apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, deacons, bishops and seventies.
This means/insinuates that in his church, in the church that Jesus the Christ set forth himself, this means he allowed of his disciples to have polygamous marriages as it was allowed in the law of Moses if they choose it in his church also.
This means Jesus wasn't against polygamous marriages. That means he wasn't offended by them as you erringly claim since he allowed for a "choice" to take place.
What say ye now? Going to call Jesus a liar again?

Since: Sep 12

Reeds Spring, MO

#22902 Mar 31, 2013
OOdle wrote:
<quoted text>Not only do the Mormons promote polygamy they promote the good old boy system and they have their fingers in every facet of Utah life. Church is state in Utah. And then the Mormon lawmakers and elected officials get caught drunk driving or like Larry Craig soliciting another male and worse.. Mormons can't even practice what they preach.
That's in every faith. For you to think otherwise is just plain stupid.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22903 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Straining on gnats isn't going to make you or the LDS church right. People without an agenda to promote polygamy see it clearly.
How do those gnats taste?
lol...this is really fricking sad. You want to get respect while speaking like some small minded child that just got bested. What is your problem? Do you even know? gnats??? lolol.....
You made a statement of the NT. I agreed to discuss it.
You stated a deacon and a bishop were to be the husband of a SINGLE wife. I didn't dispute it. That is the English rendition. So I made comment according to your statement.
Apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors and seventies WERE GIVEN NO MARITAL REQUIREMENT BY GOD THROUGH PAUL. Thats a fact! That's a NT fact. It is not my personal opinion or belief.
Jesus was born in the land of Israel where Israelites could have one or more wives as stated by the laws of Moses with laws about from God himself before he was born as a human.
God is now flesh.
God now sets forth a new religion, very different from Judaism.
God sets forth offices in the church for his disciples to hold as apostles, prophets, bishops, deacons, pastors, teachers, evangelists and seventies. THOSE ARE OFFICES SET FORTH BY GOD HIMSELF and you can't handle that fact. You can't handle that fact from Jesus because though he restricted two offices of disciples to having a single wife, he did not say the other offices had to also have one wife.
That means God aka Jesus the Christ was allowing the laws for polygamous marriages to continue from the Mosaic era into all the other offices of his new church he set forth.
And you can't handle that fact! So instead of considering it and making an intelligent reply you revert to some childish non-sense and why am I not surprised.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22904 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
He was asked a question about marriage in the next life. He answered by telling what it was going to be like. Just because you don't want to see it, doesn't make it so.
Your error began in those first three sentences. Take your own pathetic advice and read and learn yourself.
Jesus was asked a SPECIFIC question about marriage in the resurrection. Jesus was asked which husband would the widowed wife belong to in the resurrection.
Jesus wasn't ask if polygamy or eternal marriage or divorce took place in the resurrection.
Jesus wasn't asked if in the resurrection a man already married could have more wives.
Jesus wasn't asked if a single person could marry in the resurrection.
Jesus wasn't asked if a single person could marry one wife or several wives in the resurrection.
..........
Jesus was asked which widowed husband she would remain wedded to in the resurrection.
Jesus didn't answer them.
Jesus didn't tell them which husband she would belong to.
Jesus didn't tell them she would belong to none of them.
Jesus didn't tell them marriages in this life don't continue in the resurrection.
Jesus didn't tell them marriages in this life did continue in the resurrection.
Jesus didn't answer the question.
..........
Jesus made a statement to a question they didn't ask.
The Sadducee never ever asked Jesus at that time if people could be married in the resurrection.
If the Sadducee had in fact asked Jesus... "Is it true or is it not true that in the resurrection people can be married and be given in marriage as it is done now in this mortal life?" ...if the Sadducee had asked that explicit question of Jesus, than Jesus's answer would have been spot on because he would have responded as he did respond saying, "..they neither marry nor are given in marriage in the resurrection."
..........
But the conversation never went like that. Fricking read. Jesus's answer had not a thing to do with their actual question. They wanted to know who's husband would the widow belong to in the next life, meaning they were pretending to believe a marriage preformed in this mortal life continued on into the next life.
Instead of answering them, unlike marriage taking place in this life, Jesus told them a marriage could not be preformed in the next life as it was preformed in this life. Get it yet?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22905 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
While Crazy isn't part of the dialog, I wish you would talk to him before you answer. Because he said Jesus was only talking about the old covenant. That she wouldn't be married because of that. Now you are claiming she will. Which is it? If she will be married, as you are claiming, why didn't Jesus say that, instead of "you don't the scriptures?" Your answer makes zero sense.
Are you high? Maybe a bit tipped? To much wine or beer? I never made any claim to the marital status of this widow in the next life dude...lol. I never said she'd be married or not married by any covenant...lol.
Holy crap read what I write pllleaseeee????????? lol....I was discussing the differences between the question the Sadducee asked Jesus and the response he gave them that had no actual bearing on their question.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#22906 Mar 31, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
They ask who she was going to be married to, he clearly was saying none of them when he said she was going to be "like the angels." The phrase "given in marriage" means there will be no married people.
lol...Jesus never ever said she'd be married to none of them. He gave no such response. That's your bent, twisted interpretation only. Jesus gave no such response that there would be no married people from this mortality existing into the next life. Jesus said no such thing. That's your bent, twisted interpretation only.
Jesus made a statement that IN THE RESURRECTION THERE WOULD BE NO MARRYING NOR WOULD THERE BE ANY BEING GIVEN IN MARRIAGE. READ HIS WORDS. That was a statement Jesus made concerning if people could marry in the resurrection.
People already married don't get married a second time as they did the first time EXCEPT to renew the previous vows already having been made. So obviously a person in this life married, they can't marry again in the next life if they are already married from this life even if it were possible, Jesus said it isn't. Jesus stated in the resurrection no one has the opportunity to find someone and to marry them. Jesus stated in the resurrection someone can't give you away in a marriage to another person.
But Jesus didn't state marriages solemnized in this mortal life would not continue on into the next. He didn't state any such thing.

Since: Sep 12

Reeds Spring, MO

#22907 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>lol...Jesus never ever said she'd be married to none of them. He gave no such response. That's your bent, twisted interpretation only. Jesus gave no such response that there would be no married people from this mortality existing into the next life. Jesus said no such thing. That's your bent, twisted interpretation only.
Jesus made a statement that IN THE RESURRECTION THERE WOULD BE NO MARRYING NOR WOULD THERE BE ANY BEING GIVEN IN MARRIAGE. READ HIS WORDS. That was a statement Jesus made concerning if people could marry in the resurrection.
People already married don't get married a second time as they did the first time EXCEPT to renew the previous vows already having been made. So obviously a person in this life married, they can't marry again in the next life if they are already married from this life even if it were possible, Jesus said it isn't. Jesus stated in the resurrection no one has the opportunity to find someone and to marry them. Jesus stated in the resurrection someone can't give you away in a marriage to another person.
But Jesus didn't state marriages solemnized in this mortal life would not continue on into the next. He didn't state any such thing.
I found this which seems to coincide with what you are trying to say, I believe, or hope rather.

Ben Witherington, a non-LDS biblical scholar, understands this exchange in a similar way: The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not only had six brothers attempted and failed to impregnate the woman in question, but she had also outlived them all and was single when she died. It is perhaps this last fact which prompts the question: Whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?...Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms "γαμου" (gamousin) and "γαμιζ" (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, "marry," while the women are "given in marriage" by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state.

[note] Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001), 328. ISBN 0802845037.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22909 Mar 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...this is really fricking sad. You want to get respect while speaking like some small minded child that just got bested. What is your problem? Do you even know? gnats??? lolol.....
You made a statement of the NT. I agreed to discuss it.
You stated a deacon and a bishop were to be the husband of a SINGLE wife. I didn't dispute it. That is the English rendition. So I made comment according to your statement.
Apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, pastors and seventies WERE GIVEN NO MARITAL REQUIREMENT BY GOD THROUGH PAUL. Thats a fact! That's a NT fact. It is not my personal opinion or belief.
Jesus was born in the land of Israel where Israelites could have one or more wives as stated by the laws of Moses with laws about from God himself before he was born as a human.
God is now flesh.
God now sets forth a new religion, very different from Judaism.
God sets forth offices in the church for his disciples to hold as apostles, prophets, bishops, deacons, pastors, teachers, evangelists and seventies. THOSE ARE OFFICES SET FORTH BY GOD HIMSELF and you can't handle that fact. You can't handle that fact from Jesus because though he restricted two offices of disciples to having a single wife, he did not say the other offices had to also have one wife.
That means God aka Jesus the Christ was allowing the laws for polygamous marriages to continue from the Mosaic era into all the other offices of his new church he set forth.
And you can't handle that fact! So instead of considering it and making an intelligent reply you revert to some childish non-sense and why am I not surprised.
The reason given for the one wife limit was so they "are blameless." So, according to you "apostles, prophets, bishops, deacons, pastors, teachers, evangelists and seventies" don't have to be blameless? They can do what they want and still keep their office? Because, according to your logic, he also required that Bishops be "vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous". So that means because he didn't say that about "apostles, prophets, bishops, deacons, pastors, teachers, evangelists and seventies" they don't. According to your logic.

Great reasoning, if you are 5 yrs old. I can also point out he didn't have to tell the Apostles, because none of them had more than one wife, and there was NO prophets in the church.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22910 Mar 31, 2013
I'll be back later to address your inability to read and comprehend what Jesus was actually saying. It's a shame I have to, but I will.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22911 Apr 1, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
(Removed childish bloviating to make room for the answer and because it was just dang stupid.)

Jesus was asked which widowed husband she would remain wedded to in the resurrection.
Jesus didn't answer them.
Sure he did.
Jesus didn't tell them which husband she would belong to.
Yes, he did, none of them.
Jesus didn't tell them she would belong to none of them.
Sure he did: "They will be like the angels."
Jesus didn't tell them marriages in this life don't continue in the resurrection.
Sure he did:
"34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:(In life, people get married and are married)

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:(In the next life, they are not)
Jesus didn't tell them marriages in this life did continue in the resurrection.
For once we agree. He said they wouldn't.
Jesus didn't answer the question.
..........
Only to a person who can't read.
Jesus made a statement to a question they didn't ask.
If it wasn't asked, it wasn't a question. Jesus wasn't an idiot, he saw the attempt by them to try to trip him up, he shut them up instead. Some certainly thought he answered their question, because they told him:
39 Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said.
If he was wasn't answering their question, they would have said: "Master, thou art an idiot."
The Sadducee never ever asked Jesus at that time if people could be married in the resurrection.
No, not believing in the resurrection, they assumed those that do saw it as the same as the life they had, marrying, having children, etc. He told them they were wrong.
If the Sadducee had in fact asked Jesus... "Is it true or is it not true that in the resurrection people can be married and be given in marriage as it is done now in this mortal life?" ...if the Sadducee had asked that explicit question of Jesus, than Jesus's answer would have been spot on because he would have responded as he did respond saying, "..they neither marry nor are given in marriage in the resurrection."
..........
They asked plain as day a question about marriage in the resurrection: 33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.

His answer was plain as day, none of them.
But the conversation never went like that. Fricking read. Jesus's answer had not a thing to do with their actual question.
If there isn't the institution of marriage in the next life, that was an answer. "They will be like angels."

They wanted to know who's husband would the widow belong to in the next life, meaning they were pretending to believe a marriage preformed in this mortal life continued on into the next life.
You right, they were pretending. Mormonism believes it really will, but Jesus said:

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:(In this life there is marriage)

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.(In the next life there isn't)
Instead of answering them, unlike marriage taking place in this life, Jesus told them a marriage could not be preformed in the next life as it was preformed in this life. Get it yet?
Why? Because people will not be married in the next life. The following I also point out to Crazy, If being married is going to be part of eternal life, why not continue it? Why limit it just to those chosen few?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22912 Apr 1, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you high? Maybe a bit tipped? To much wine or beer? I never made any claim to the marital status of this widow in the next life dude...lol. I never said she'd be married or not married by any covenant...lol.
Holy crap read what I write pllleaseeee????????? lol....I was discussing the differences between the question the Sadducee asked Jesus and the response he gave them that had no actual bearing on their question.
Well, Jesus did make a claim, he said she wasn't going to be married, and neither was anybody else.
Father overtime

Salt Lake City, UT

#22913 Apr 1, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, Jesus did make a claim, he said she wasn't going to be married, and neither was anybody else.
He didn't say that. That is your interpretation.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22914 Apr 1, 2013
Father overtime wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't say that. That is your interpretation.
It's as plain as day.
Bigfoot

United States

#22915 Apr 1, 2013
Hey Christians, Can't we all just get along.
No one christian believes exactly what another christian believes. In the end you can only answer for yourself. Preachers have to answer for any of thier misleading.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#22916 Apr 1, 2013
Bigfoot wrote:
Hey Christians, Can't we all just get along.
No one christian believes exactly what another christian believes. In the end you can only answer for yourself. Preachers have to answer for any of thier misleading.
We're getting along. It's a discussion.
Jubmo

Draper, UT

#22917 Apr 1, 2013
Livinginthelandofcrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
I found this which seems to coincide with what you are trying to say, I believe, or hope rather.
Ben Witherington, a non-LDS biblical scholar, understands this exchange in a similar way: The case put forward by the Sadducees is particularly extreme. Not
There is no marriage in heaven. Mormon god is a man, that's why these morons argue so much for their pagan doctrine!

1) Joseph Smith said that "First God Himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity... God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did,...You have to learn how to be gods yourselves; ...No man can learn you more than what I have told you."

2) Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt stated, "The Gods who dwell in Heaven...have been redeemed from the grave in a world which existed before the foundations of this earth were laid. They and the Heavenly body which they now inhabit were once in a fallen state .... they were exalted also, from Fallen men to Celestial Gods to inhabit their heaven forever and ever."

3) Pratt further stated that, "We (men on earth) were begotten by our father in heaven: the person of our Father in Heaven we begotten on a previous heavenly world by his father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient father; and so on."

4) Brigham Young stated the purpose of the LDS god, "The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming God like himself; We are created ... to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven."

5) Being true to his church's teaching, Milton Hunter concluded that, " ...we must accept the fact that there was a time when Deity was much less powerful than He is today."

6) The LDS Scriptures teach that God is a man of flesh and bones: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

From these statements, made by the founders and leaders of Mormonism, we can see that they believe in a plurality of gods in the Universe. Their god is only one of an innumerable number of gods in the Universe and is an exalted man of "flesh and bone" who was given charge of this world. However, they do not worship a plurality of gods, only worshiping or being responsible to the god of earth who is literally their "Heavenly Father" meaning they are his sexually produced off-spring. In fact all angels, Jesus, Lucifer and all men are the sexually produced children of their god in heaven.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Television Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 8 min unborn lives matter 330,711
News Farrah Abraham seen after suing Teen Mom produc... 1 hr VillaHousewife 1
News Lawmakers address accusations 2 hr liam cul8r 82
News 'The View' co-hosts mock Mike Pence's faith, br... 6 hr General Kabaka Oba 33
News Iyanla Vanzant Set To Bring A Message Of Inspir... 16 hr They cannot kill ... 6
News Meghan McCain's feud with Joy Behar on The View... 17 hr Happy camper 1
News 'Yep, I'm Gay': Happy 20th out anniversary, Ell... (Apr '17) 18 hr Randy 20
More from around the web