mormon_4_jesus

thrown out? While we were waiting, it seemed as if the non-Mormons were dancing in the streets.

Now that the fraud case in Great Britain was thrown out as a waste of the court's time?

I mean, really, did anyone HONESTLY believe that it would go anywhere?

Does anyone really believe that any court would seriously think it can make any sort of legal judgment on what a church believes?

All these (non-LDS) Christians are listening to Christ explain the truth, and they are all saying "But wait, Lord, that's not what it says in the Bible! See, here, it says (yada yada yada), so see? You are wrong!"

I mean, sometimes I just get that feeling, you know? When I hear them saying to me "If those Mormons would JUST READ THE BIBLE..."!

Or, teen agers having babies? Sometimes, teen age boys brag about how many children they have with several girls.

Or serial monogamy? Men and women who marry, divorce, marry again, divorce again, etc.

And now, it's homosexual marriage. And if rumors are to be believed, some people are honestly trying to decriminalize beastiality!

And yet, when polygamy is mentioned, people go off the deep end! Men who have more than one wife are sexual animals, etc.

I know that these Fundamentalist Mormons are taking it to extremes. But, most polygamists don't marry that many women. Most only have maybe two or three.

They are accused of adultery, but they are MARRIED, while REAL adulterers are totally ignored by almost all churches.

I know that polygamy will never be legalized, because it would give women power that most men don't want them to have. Take, for instance, Bill Clinton. All his women are well known; Monica, Gennifer, Paula, etc. Now, if polygamy were legal, these women could say to Bill, "Look, you want it? You better put a ring on it!" (with apologies to Beyonce). And everyone knows it's cheaper to have a mistress than it is to have a wife. And more than one wife could break the bank.

So, what's so gawdawful terrible about polygamy? Perhaps churches should try looking sin in the face, and calling it what it is.

This new format stinks. I hate it, I can't figure it out.

to change the policy of blacks of African descent holding the priesthood in 1978?

I hear people insisting that the church caved in to political and economic pressure. The most compelling argument is when Bob Jones Univ. was told to start admitting blacks. But, that would not have worked at BYU because they were admitting blacks, as far as I know.

I know that some other schools' sports teams were boycotting BYU because of the church policy, but that would not have worked, at least not with state sponsored schools. For example, one school that was going to boycott was Arizona State. But, with lots of help from others, one LDS man convinced them that this was unconstitutional, since it was a government run school and the first amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion, or restricting the free practice of a religion. Since it was not a matter of civil rights being violated, and since there were black members of the church, who were not asking anyone's help to get what only God could give them, as they, and we, believe, then the boycott would be pretty much illegal.

And most privately run schools are run by churches, so it would not be in their best interests either, to boycott. They would set a precident for all schools to boycott church-run schools when ever there was some disagreement on church policy. And if the government told one church how to believe, then they could be able to tell ALL churches, and again we are getting into unconstitutionality.

So, anyone have anything else?

to change the policy of blacks of African descent holding the priesthood in 1978?

I hear people insisting that the church caved in to political and economic pressure. The most compelling argument is when Bob Jones Univ. was told to start admitting blacks. But, that would not have worked at BYU because they were admitting blacks, as far as I know.

I know that some other schools' sports teams were boycotting BYU because of the church policy, but that would not have worked, at least not with state sponsored schools. For example, one school that was going to boycott was Arizona State. But, with lots of help from others, one LDS man convinced them that this was unconstitutional, since it was a government run school and the first amendment prohibits the establishment of a religion, or restricting the free practice of a religion. Since it was not a matter of civil rights being violated, and since there were black members of the church, who were not asking anyone's help to get what only God could give them, as they, and we, believe, then the boycott would be pretty much illegal.

And most privately run schools are run by churches, so it would not be in their best interests either, to boycott. They would set a precident for all schools to boycott church-run schools when ever there was some disagreement on church policy. And if the government told one church how to believe, then they could be able to tell ALL churches, and again we are getting into unconstitutionality.

So, anyone have anything else?

back in 1978, that made us change our policy of not giving the priesthood to MEMBERS who were black of African descent?

I have never found any such pressures, and no one has ever said anything specific.

To say something is true, but not give any proof, especially when proof is asked for, is dishonest.

I just wish people would either put up or shut up.

We would not be Mormon?

I read and study the Bible, before and after I joined the LDS church.

When it's totally obvious that they have not.

Some examples:

Is it true mormons believe that jesus is friends with satan !!!!?

Are African-Americans or "mud people" as Mormons called them allowed to join the Mormon Church?

Mormons: Does wearing golden underpants make you forget 5th grade geography?

If Romney is voted into office with Illuminati "Free" Mason Mormon mafia will the Euphrates dry up?

Does the Mormon God have an endless pedigree chart of Holy Ancestors from Kolob?

Do you agree with Mitt Romney that baptizing dead Iraqi Civilians as Mormons is `foreign policy experience`?

Can the Mormon prophet see if Mitt Romney will become president?

Does Mitt Romney use his mormon space magic to win every coin toss?

The thing that really bothers me is that there are other people out there who seem to think that these are legitimate questions, and that Mormons actually believe this stuff.

His name was John F. Kennedy.

Now why do people say Romney, who's uber-rich, and went to Harvard, is not in touch with the common man? When Kennedy was uber-rich, from Massachusetts and went to Harvard also? I never heard anyone say that HE was not in touch with the common man, yet, I think he was much more distant from the common man than Romney, any day.

JFK was not raised rich, he was raised as royalty.

Romney is a business man, who can run the business of government. Kennedy was an elitist, who may have said, ask not what your country can do for you, but by the time he was killed, and Johnson was gone as well, it was "Ask not, what your country can do for you. But, if you are a some sort of 'special interest', DEMAND your country do whatever it can for you".

Here is what the IRS says about charitable [501(c)(3)] organizations, and I think most churches qualify:

>>Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.<<

Now, you know that it follows, like night follows day, that if the leaders of the LDS church were to stand up in the pulpit and publicly endorse Mitt Romney, or any candidate, for POTUS, our enemies would be all over us, like white on rice! Yet, these other pastors will stand up in front of God and everyone, and either publicly endorse Gingrich or Santorum, or speak out against Romney, and NOTHING happens. I mean, is there something I'm missing? Why are these guys allowed to do this?

Here is what the IRS says about charitable [501(c)(3)] organizations, and I think most churches qualify:

>>Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.<<

Now, you know that it follows, like night follows day, that if the leaders of the LDS church were to stand up in the pulpit and publicly endorse Mitt Romney, or any candidate, for POTUS, our enemies would be all over us, like white on rice! Yet, these other pastors will stand up in front of God and everyone, and either publicly endorse Gingrich or Santorum, or speak out against Romney, and NOTHING happens. I mean, is there something I'm missing? Why are these guys allowed to do this?

As if all we have to do is read these verses and we will just curl up and die.

When we have refuted these verses over and over again.

Some of these verses are:

Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

We don't preach any gospel but the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon is not another gospel, it's another TESTAMENT. Besides, even if it is another gospel and Paul warns against another gospel, then one must choose which of the four GOSPELS in the Bible is the right one.

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

This is warning that man cannot add to the book of Revelation.

Nothing says that God cannot add to His word whenever He wants.

There are other verses, too, that I didn't post here. Even those who say "If Mormons would just read their Bible, they would know they are wrong!".

It was the Bible that initially told me that the LDS church is the Church of Christ. There is nothing in the Bible that tells me the LDS church is wrong. It's all in the interpretation.

So, why can't they GET that?

Our temples are out there, bold as brass. People know that only those Mormons who have a special recommend from their area leaders can enter the temple.

When we have built a new temple, or completely refurbished an older one, we usually have an open house where everyone and their brother can enter and see what it looks like on the inside.

This is what another LDS wrote in another forum, about the temple. His name is Dwight Rogers. I found it profound.

"Latter-day Saints invite all people to qualify themselves to come to the Temple and receive instruction. It is not intended that anyone be left out. However, as taught by the Bible prophets, the early Christians, and Jesus Himself, sacred things are shared only when people are prepared for it. The responsibility to prepare and become qualified rests on each individual. If any do not come it is because they exclude themselves and not because they are not invited. It seems so ironic to me that some people complain about being left out when, all along, we have been pleading with them to come, qualify themselves, and join with us."

So, how are we a secret society?

Is it a requirement to have godparents for a child? Are there other churches that require children to have god parents?

Thanks!

I mean, Mormons can answer if they want, but I'm way more interested in the non-LDS Christian's take on these verses.

And just so you don't have to go look it up:

Luke 15:27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.

28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.

29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

How would you go about proving it to a non-believer?