Log In to The Paramus Post - Greater Paramus News and Lifestyle Webzine

Please enter your user name and password below.

No Account Yet? Sign Up!

The Paramus Post - Greater Paramus News and Lifestyle Webzine
Thursday, May 13 2021 @ 08:12 AM EDT
The Paramus Post - Greater Paramus News and Lifestyle Webzine
Thursday, May 13 2021 @ 08:12 AM EDT
The Paramus Post - Greater Paramus News and Lifestyle Webzine

USA Today Magazine Features The Secret Mormon Temple Ceremonies (Romney & Wife Have Made

USA Today Magazine features the Secret Mormon Temple Ceremonies (Romney & Wife have made "suffer their lives to death" oaths to the Mormon Church) in the July Issue. A 2000 word excerpt from chapter 4 of the (Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters?) book, "Mitt's Secretive Oaths, Allegiance, Covenants, Pledges to Death Penalties, and Commitments to the Mormon church--And Its Bizarre Temple Rituals and Beliefs", starting on page 43 of the book, is featured in USA Today Magazine.

The author of the book, Tricia Erickson, has been through the same secret Mormon Temple Ceremonies, as a young bride at the age of 19, that Mitt and Ann Romney participated in. She reports that the rituals were mind controlling and threatening as she followed the symbolic signs to slit her throat, her guts, pull her tongue from her mouth, rip her heart out of her chest, and repeated the words “suffer my life to death”, after every action, if we broke any of the covenants to the Mormon Church. Mitt and Ann Romney do NOT have the choice, as prominent members of the Mormon Church, to put country first. The Mormon Religion, the Mormon Prophets and the Book of Mormon have to be adhered to first, before anything else in their lives. Mitt and Anne’s very exaltation to Mormon Godhood depends on it.
You see, the Romney’s goals go much further into the future then just what they can accomplish on earth. The more important goal, even over the Office Of the Presidency, is to become literal Gods and be given their own planet to Lord over and to populate it with spirit children. This is the ultimate “for time and all eternity” goal.
While the country is perplexed at the only two choices we have to vote for as our next President, most of its citizens would rather not vote for either one of these candidates. Americans feel helpless to save our country due to these two dire choices and have resigned themselves to vote for who they think will be the lesser of the two evils. However, both men, when you look at their records, their history and their allegiances, are very much the same people.
Many are taking Charles Spurgeon's advice, “Of the two evils, choose neither”.
Can American Voters Have Confidence In Romney To Put country First?: http://www.theconservativepundit.net/?m=201112&paged=2

Book: Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? The Mormon Church Versus The Office Of The Presidency of the United States of America
Conservative Political Commentator Tricia Erickson released an in-epth expose' into the political, personal and religious life of Presidential hopefull Mitt Romney. And she's holding no punches.
Part I: "While he attempts to portray Mormonism as just another Christian Religion, Mitt Romney counts on his skills to shift our attention away from what he truly believes. If the American people knew what he truly believed, they would surely not place him in the highest office in the land."
Mitt Romney Truly Believes:
• He will become a "god" in the afterlife (equal to Jesus Christ)
• Satan is Jesus' literal brother
• Jesus was NOT born of a virgin birth
• Mitt will be given his own afterlife kingdom where he will call his wife, Ann, into, in order to have relations to populate his kingdom with spirit children
• Mitt believes in a religion that's history is full of racism against Black Americans, Native Americans, Jews and more
• There is a Mormon Plan For America
• More…..
Part II: How can a candidate with an extreme progressive record run as a Republican? This book demonstrates Mitt's liberal record to the point that it boggles the mind that any Republican, Conservative or Christian could vote for him.
• He “fathered” Gay Marriage to America, yet now proclaims to be “for” marriage between one man and one woman.
• Mitt also “fathered” Government Mandated Healthcare to America in which he signed-in-to-law $50.00 co-pay tax funded abortions as a part of a “healthcare benefit” (now the co-pay to kill babies under RomneyCare is $0.00). So if you are a Massachusetts resident, your tax dollars pay for abortions-on-demand.
• Was for abortion and stem cell research before he was against it. He was pro-choice in 1994, 2002, 2005 and was pro-life in 2001, 2004 and 2006 - then funded abortion in the same year.
• Good Economist? Think again. He refused to sign a no-new-taxes-pledge while running for governor. Under Romney, MA was in the BOTTOM THREE OF THE NATION FOR JOB CREATION! Mitt also raised taxes and fees seven times…more in the book.
• Olympics: Romney siphoned an estimated $1.5 billion out of the US Treasury, all in the name of the Olympics. This siphoning expanded to more money than all of the US Olympic games put together.
• Appointed liberal-progressive judges (record is in the book)
About the author:
Former Mormon Bishop’s Daughter and Political Commentator Reveals Real Story on Mitt Romney!
Tricia Erickson, (a Conservative) was the first Damage Control/Crisis Management Specialist in the country, as stated by Barbara Walters on the show "20/20". Tricia is also a political consultant and on-air contributor. She has opined on many local and national news and entertainment TV and radio shows/networks. She is also the author of the book “Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? The Mormon Church Versus The Office Of The Presidency of the United States of America.”
Because for the first time in history, a prominent Mormon could achieve the Office Of The Presidency, Tricia feels a responsibility to educate the public, both in the US and abroad, regarding what this potential Mormon President could truly mean for America. She is an expert on the well-masked cult of Mormonism and a former Mormon Bishop’s daughter who left the church in her mid 20’s.
From a political stand point, she believes it is imperative to reveal the facts on Romney’s appalling political record in opposition to what the GOP and the Romney camp shifts the voters to believe, in order to achieve the Presidency.
We have by now experienced with the current President what smooth words and entertainment imagery, as opposed to substance, can bring to the highest office in the land. Now, the GOP has served up this front-runner liberal candidate who has no problem with misrepresenting his own record for the reason of political expediency. The truth be known, there is not much difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Their policies and records are very much alike. Flip a coin!
Side note: Some of the issues Tricia has been called to speak to in the past are the dangers of Radical Islam, Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Mormonism, all things political, the imaging-posturing-positioning of Presidential Candidates, the culture wars and more. Her companies: Crisis Management, Incorporated (crisis management and communications) http://crisismanagementincorporated.com/and Angel Pictures & Publicity (a political and entertainment publicity and consulting company) http://angelpicturesandpublicity.com/.


Share It!

Comments are closed

Eric Frame

Friday, July 20 2012 @ 02:45 AM EDT
Oh Tricia,

WOW! The new Fawn Brodie! Like her, long on scorn and short on facts. No matter. For those who honor logic and history the following is offered:

To suggest that President Romney’s actions would be defined by the Church tickles my funny bone. Harry Reid has been the most powerful man in DC for over 8 years. Nothing happens unless he says it happens. He is active LDS. His political agenda is uninfluenced by the LDS Church, as will President Romney's. I knew Frank Moss when he was in the Senate. Good man…Powerful man, big Democrat…Father of modern day NASA. The Church did not define politics for him. Perhaps you remember Jack Anderson? Active LDS and on Nixon’s enemies list. All Temple attenders. But the Romneys will be different? LOL!

Will you be writing a book on those active Latter Day Saints and the influence of the Temple on them?

Am always amazed at the comfort level of passionate anti Mormons in demeaning the religious beliefs of any one. Attended the Temple last week and have done so for 40 years. Want you to know that there are more accurate depictions on the net than your memory.

If such sordid and negative activities as you claim in LDS Temples were actually weird or disgusting, Latter Day Saints ought to be easy to spot by their rank behavior in the community. But, apparently, whatever goes on "in there" results in less divorce, happier kids, higher educational levels of its women and men and positive contributions to the good whatever society members find themselves.

You surely remember Brigham Young’s quote regarding angry “ex-members”: “The dogs bark but the wagon train moves on”. And it has: 18,000 plus buildings, 28,000 congregations, 14.7 million member’s world wide, in 180 countries.

Peace to you, Sister.

Dwight Rogers

Friday, July 20 2012 @ 05:27 PM EDT
It must have been a long time ago that Tricia went to the temple, and/or she has a very bad memory. She gets about everything wrong.

This article is very inaccurate. The poorest of journalism.

Dwight Rogers

Friday, July 20 2012 @ 05:30 PM EDT
Mormonism says nothing about a sexual act being involved in the conception of Jesus but only that a normal mortal conception and pregnancy took place. Mormon leaders have taught repeatedly that the pregnancy and birth of Jesus was a normal mortal process. By saying this they do not address HOW the conception was brought about but THAT a normal conception and mortal pregnancy did take place.

Mormons teach that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost as both the Bible and Book of Mormon teach. Mormons teach that Mary was still a virgin after she conceived. Even we humans have the ability to create test tube babies where the sperm donor and the egg donor never have to know each other let alone have intimate relations with each other. If we can do that then certainly God is smart enough to cause Mary to conceive without a sexual act. Mormon teaching says nothing about a sexual act being involved. This is a straw man invention of the critics, does not represent LDS teaching, and is not worthy of serious journalism. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that Mary was still a virgin after conception.

Note the following teachings of the Mormon Church:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded to Fox News on this question as follows:
“The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.” (Fox News, "21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith," (18 December 2007).)

Mormons believe the following from the Bible:

Luke 1:34-35
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Mormons believe the following from the Book of Mormon:

1 Neph1 11:18-20
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
20And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.


Alma 7:10
10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Ezra Taft Benson taught:
He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Nephi 11:20.) (From Ezra Taft Benson, "Joy in Christ," Ensign (March 1986), 3–4)

Jeffrey R. Holland (2007)

"Now, to anyone within the sound of my voice who has wondered regarding our Christianity, I bear this witness. I testify that Jesus Christ is the literal, living Son of our literal, living God. This Jesus is our Savior and Redeemer who, under the guidance of the Father, was the Creator of heaven and earth and all things that in them are. I bear witness that He was born of a virgin mother, that in His lifetime He performed mighty miracles observed by legions of His disciples and by His enemies as well."

Since Mary was still a virgin after the birth she clearly had no sexual intercourse before that time.

Dwight Rogers

Friday, July 20 2012 @ 05:34 PM EDT
Jesus and Satan are brothers? - - a half truth.

In an electronic search of 1,000 LDS church books and Scriptures, this phrase appears nowhere.
First, we believe that ALL people are sons and daughters of God - an entirely Biblical concept. One of the most prevalent doctrines of the Bible is that we are the offspring of God and that we can become more like him.

"We are the offspring of God." (Acts 17:28,29)

"Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the father of spirits and live?" (Heb. 12:9)

Speaking of the council in Heaven before the world was Job says: "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord..." (Job 1:16)

"When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy." (Job 38:4-7)

Since God created all things and all creatures, then Lucifer or Satan is one of His creations and therefore, in a sense a fellow creature to us all and a brother.

Romans 8:29 says that Christ was appointed beforehand (KJV uses "predestined") to "be the firstborn among many brethren."

Jesus said that he had brothers (brethren) and that we have a common father: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say say unto them, I ascend to my Father and your Father (John 20:17)

From these, and many other passages, we learn that we are the offspring of God. (see also Rom. 8:29; Heb. 2:11) Here, Christ acknowledges that other mortal men are his brothers and that together with Christ we have a common father. This doctrine is taught in the Bible and in early Christian teachings

In December 2007 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) issued the following press release on this issue:

“Like other Christians, we believe Jesus is the divine Son of God. Satan is a fallen angel. As the Apostle Paul wrote, God is the Father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are His spirit children. Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh, and we worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Answering Media Questions About Jesus and Satan," Press release (12 December 2007))

LDS doctrine does not subscribe to the extra-Biblical creedal doctrine of the trinity. LDS do not hold to the metaphysical definitions imposed upon Christianity that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father," as the Nicene Creed declares.

Rather, LDS doctrine is original Christina doctrine: that God the Father is physically and personally distinct from Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son. The Father is understood to be the literal father of His spirit children. Most Christians would agree that God is the creator and everything else that exists are his creations as the Apostle John taught (John 1:3 see also Col. 1:16 & Rev. 4:11) Since Christ is the Son of God and since all of mankind are also referred to as God’s offspring (Acts 17:29; Romans 8:16) and Jesus said we have a common Father with Him (John 20:17) then it is technically true to say that Jesus and Satan are "brothers," in the sense that both have the same spiritual parent, or creator, God the Father.

Romans 8:29 says that Christ was appointed beforehand (KJV uses "predestined") to "be the firstborn among many brethren."

Isaiah 14:12 tells us that Lucifer was a son: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! (How) art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"
Jesus said that he had brothers (brethren) and that we have a common father: “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17)

Since God created all things and all creatures, then Lucifer or Satan is one of His creations and therefore, in a sence a fellow creature to us all and a brother.

Revelation 12:7-9: "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

Cain and Able were brothers, and yet no Bible believer would say that they are spiritual equals. Mother Teresa and Hitler are siblings, both being children of God, yet no one would say that they are equivalent. The scriptures teach the superiority of Jesus over the devil. Michael and Lucifer (Satan) fought against each other (Revelations 12:7-8)

The early Christians teach a doctrine very similar to LDS Belief. The early Ante-Nicene Church father Lactantius wrote

Since God was possessed of the greatest foresight for planning, and of the greatest skill for carrying out in action, before He commenced this business of the world,--inasmuch as there was in Him, and always is, the fountain of full and most complete goodness,--in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him, and might flow forth afar, He produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father... Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain. Therefore he was infected with his own envy as with poison, and passed from good to evil; and at his own will, which had been given to him by God unfettered, he acquired for himself a contrary name. From which it appears that the source of all evils is envy. For he envied his predecessor, who through his steadfastness is acceptable and dear to God the Father. This being, who from good became evil by his own act, is called by the Greeks diabolus: we call him accuser, because he reports to God the faults to which he himself entices us. God, therefore, when He began the fabric of the world, set over the whole work that first and greatest Son, and used Him at the same time as a counselor and artificer, in planning, arranging, and accomplishing, since He is complete both in knowledge, and judgment, and power. (Lactantius, Divine Institutes 2.9. in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. (1885; reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 7:52–53.)

Here, Lactantius, considered an Orthodox Christian in his time, teaches that God “produced a Spirit like to Himself” who is Jesus and “then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain” who was Satan. Lactantius has Jesus and Satan as brothers. Were the early Christians of Lactantius’s time then, not Christian?

Many things Lactantius here taught are not considered "orthodox" by today's standards. However, Lactantius was definitely orthodox during his lifetime. Amazingly, many things here correspond to LDS doctrine precisely in those areas that are "unorthodox." For example,

1) "He produced a Spirit like to Himself," namely Christ. Christ, in this sense, is not the "co-equal," "eternally begotten," "same substance" "persona" of the later creeds.
2) "Then he made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain." God made another spirit who rebelled and who fell from his exalted status. He is the diabolus.
3) 3. Christ is the "first and greatest Son." Not the "only" son.
4) 4. Lastly, since the diabolus and Christ are both spirit sons of God, they are spirit brothers.

Dwight Rogers

Friday, July 20 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT
Joseph Smith, once gave his valuable horse to a black man, so the man could buy his son out of slavery. The Church sent tons of food and clothing to the earthquake victims in Haiti, a predominantly black country. They have missionaries all over the world teaching people of all races and colors. This does't sound racist to me.

In 1844, Joseph Smith ran for president with a plan to free all slaves by 1850. He was murdered 4 months into his campaign.

In Missouri, where the predominant attitude was pro-slavery, the LDS church underwent severe persecution. One of the underlying reasons was that Mormon support of freedom for black slaves was unpopular in the State of Missouri.

Note what the Book of Mormon teaches:

2 Nephi 26:33
33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

In 1972, Harold B. Lee cautioned:
We are having come into the Church now many people of various nationalities. We in the Church must remember that we have a history of persecution, discrimination against our civil rights, and our constitutional privileges being withheld from us. These who are members of the Church, regardless of their color, their national origin, are members of the church and kingdom of God. Some of them have told us that they are being shunned. There are snide remarks. We are withdrawing ourselves from them in some cases.

Now we must extend the hand of fellowship to men everywhere, and to all who are truly converted and who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein. We ask the Church members to strive to emulate the example of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, who gave us the new commandment that we should love one another. I wish we could remember that. (Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 384)

Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) gave this teaching in priesthood session of General Conference:

“Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.
Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Hinckley continues:

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

“Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Need for Greater Kindness," Ensign (May 2006), 58–61)

The God of the Bible also withheld priesthood from large segments of the population in Biblical times. God withheld priesthood from all but a select group. He gave the Aaronic Priesthood to only one of the twelve tribes of Israel (Exo. 28:1-4; Num, 23:5-13; Num 8:5-26’ Num ch 17; Num. 18:6-8; Num. 27: 18-23, Leviticus 8, and Numbers 1)).

Uzza was severely punished for touching the arc without having priesthood authority. (1 Chr. 13:9-10).
The Aaronic Priesthood was given to the tribe of Levi as "an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations" (Ex. 40:15) and those who could not prove their Levitical lineage were "polluted, put from the priesthood." (Ezra 2:6-26).

If Moses were alive today he would be rejected as discriminatory for withholding the Levitical priesthood from the other 11 tribes of Israel.

It was not Moses who withheld the priesthood, it was the Lord. Moses was just carrying out the commandment. The Bible shows that God does discriminate. He is God. He can do whatever he wants.

God changed this later when priests from tribes other than the tribe of Levi were allowed to have the priesthood. Two examples are given: Christ himself, and Melchizedek who would "not be called after the order of Aaron. This shows that God can withhold priesthood from some groups and then change that policy and give the priesthood to them later. God did this in the bible. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is false for the priesthood issue then so is God for doing the same thing and the Bible is therefore false.

The Bible tells us that God can, and did, change the priesthood: "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews. 7:11-12). Thus, we see in the Bible that there is variableness in the way the Lord handles Priesthood authority. It’s up to God not Moses, or Joseph Smith or any man. Thus, we see that the God of Mormonism is the same God as the God of the Bible. He acts the same sometimes withholding priesthood from one group and other times granting it according to his will.

Jesus commanded that the gospel be taken only to the Jews. (Matthew 10:5-6) Later God revealed to Peter that the time had come to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10) This came by revelation to the man who was the prophet at the time - Peter. It does not come by the will or reasoning of men. This shows that God has his purposes and his time table. It is not revealed why the gospel was denied to the gentiles at first but it was God’s will that it be so.

Other examples can be cited where God gave commandments at one time that differed from what he said another time:

Noah (but no other prophet) was to build an Ark (Genesis 6:14)

Moses implemented the Passover, which was hitherto unknown (Exodus 3:12-28)

Jesus revoked the celebration of Passover, and modified the ordinance and its performance at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19)

Hosea was commanded to marry a prostitute as a sign to Israel Hosea 1-3

First the Higher law was given in the bible.

Then the Law of Moses: It was added to the higher laws of God because of the stubbornness of the children of Israel. The scriptures say "...ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses" (Acts 13:39); and "For the law made nothing perfect..." (Heb 7:19); and that the law "...was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" (Gal. 3:24).

Later, the law of Moses was fulfilled by Christ and no longer observed and the higher law was reinstated. (See Acts 13:39; Heb. 7:19; Ga. 3:24).

He gave "a better covenant" (Heb. 7:6), and spoke of "the first covenant" (Heb. 7:7), and "a new covenant" (Heb 7:8,13). And we also read where the God instituted "a change also of the law" (Heb 7:12), and He said: "For verily there is a disannulling of the commandment going before" (Heb. 7:18). It is clear that God can change his laws, or the way his gospel is administered, as he pleases.

President George Albert Smith, indicated that the priesthood ban had been imposed by "direct commandment from the Lord."

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.”
—First Presidency statement, August 17, 1949

The issue of Blacks and the priesthood or any and all of the other anti-Mormon arguments are not the real issue. The real issue is this: Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the true church? Is Joseph Smith a true prophet of God? Is the Book of Mormon true? If so then it was God, and not Joseph Smith or any other man who directed the priesthood to be withheld from Blacks just as it was God, not Moses, who withheld the priesthood from the other 11 tribes in the Bible.

It is not Jesus, God, Moses, Joseph Smith, or the restored Church that is the problem. It is the false standard for judgment that is set up by the anti-Mormons. They set up a standard that is un-factual, unhistorical, un-scriptural and which proves the Bible and even Jesus false along with Joseph Smith and Mormonism. God can withhold the priesthood from any group anytime he wants to. He is God. He can do whatever he wants.

Dwight Rogers

Friday, July 20 2012 @ 05:39 PM EDT
In the Doctrine and Covenants we read of LDS belief regarding the Constitution:

Doctrine and Covenants 98:5
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

Doctrine and Covenants 101: 77-80
77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

Doctrine and Covenants 109:54
54 Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever.

Joseph Smith on March 25, 1839, wrote:“The Constitution is a glorious standard. And again on October 15, 1843 he said“I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution…”

Dwight Rogers

Friday, July 20 2012 @ 05:40 PM EDT
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.

The Lord gives us all truth at once but line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little and there a liltle. (Isaiah 21:10, 13). He gives milk before meat (Hebrews 5:12)

When sacred things are handed out to just anybody they are not valued or understood by the those who are unspiritualy prepared (1 Corinthians Chapter 2).

On several occasions the teachings of Jesus, or events which took place, were so sacred that he did not want to discuss them openly. After Peter James and John saw Moses, and Elias, and heard God’s voice on the Mount of Transfigureation Jesus told them “tell the vision to no man, until the Son of Man be risen again from the dead" (Matt. 17:9).

John's account tells us that "when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret."

On other occasions the Lord told his disciples "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ," (Matt 16:20, Mark 7:36, Luke 9:21). After performing miraculous healings, Christ required that the event be kept secret. For instance, after healing a leper (Matt. 8:2-4), he said, "see thou tell no man," (Mark 5:43, Mark 7:36).

He told his disciples the following:

Matt. 13:11
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the amysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

John 16:12
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Matt. 7:6
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

The author of Hebrews wrote that some are still babes in Christ and are ready only for milk are not yet ready for meat (Heb. 5:12-14). How are they to receive the "meat"? In sacred places, such as the temple! Paul says “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.” (1 Corintians 3:2)

Paul, himself, when he was caught up into paradise, heard unspeakable words, which were "not lawful for a man to utter" (2 Cor. 12:4). The Bible teaches us that we are given line upon line, here a little and there a little, milk before meat. (Isaiah 28:10,13,) Paul says: “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.” (1 Cor. 3:2; see also Heb. 5:12)

The early Christians continued this policy. Peter taught Clement of Rome (Bishop of Rome abt. 90 AD) about the necessity to protect sacred things associated with “my house” meaning the Temple:

Peter Said to me, “Let us remember that the Lord commanded us saying : 'Guard those secret things which belong to me and the sons of my house. Keep my secret ye who are kept by it. '…Now Clement you are forcing me with your questions to discuss things that are not allowed to talk about. But I will explain things so far as it is allowed. With the passing of time the more secret things will be disclosed to you….. it is not permitted to me now to disclose these things to you. God has concealed his mind from men and we are under obligation to honor with silence the very highest teachings. Nothing is harder than to reason about the truth in the presence of mixed multitudes of people. I try for the most part by using a certain circumlocution to avoid publishing the chief knowledge concerning the Supreme Divinity to unworthy ears. The teaching of all doctrine has a certain order, and there are some things which must be delivered first, others in the second place, and others in the third, and so all in their order; and if these things be delivered in their order, they become plain; but if they be brought forward out of order, they will seem to be spoken against reason…” (The Recognitions of Clement/Book III/Chapter 24)

Notice Peter’s reference to guarding secret things having to do with “my house.” This is a reference to the Temple and is very similar to what Joseph Smith taught:

"It was the design of the councils of heaven before the world was, that the principles and laws of the priesthood should be predicated upon the gathering of the people in every age of the world. Jesus did everything to gather the people, and they would not be gathered.... The main object [of gathering] was to build unto the Lord a house whereby He could reveal unto. His people the ordinances of His house and the glories of His kingdom, and teach the people the way of salvation; for there are certain ordinances and principles that, when they are taught and practiced, must be done in a place or house built for that purpose. "

It wasen’t just Peter who followed the Lord in this policy:

Lactantius (ca. 240 – ca. 320) wrote "We do not make a practice of defending and discussing this thing publicly, because, with the help of God, we quietly keep his secret to ourselves in silence . . . for it is proper to withhold and conceal the mystery with all possible care—especially so for us who bear the name of believers."(Lactantius, Divine Institutes VIII. 26 (Nibley: Since Cumorah p. 111 )

Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - c. 215)
''The Mysteries of the Faith, are not to be disclosed indiscriminately to everyone, since not all are
ready to receive the truth."' (Clement of Alexandria, Patrologia)

The very early Testament of Our Lord Jesus opens with the admonition that the document is to come into the hands "only of proven saints who dwell in the third order (or level) next to the mansion of my Father who sent me." (Test. Dom. n. J. Christi, Rahmani, ed. I, xviii (pp.22f.); Nibley: Since Cumorah p. 111 )

Apocryphon of James.( Secret Book of James,) begins: "Since you have asked me to send you a secret book of revelation, which was given to me and to Peter by the Lord, I cannot refuse or be silent.... But I ... send it to you and to you alone.... Take care not to let this book of the Lord be communicated to many. The Savior did not want it transmitted to all the Twelve." (Apocryphon of James, 1:8-25; Nibley: Since Cumorah p. 112 )

Ignatius wrote to the Saints at Tralles (SW Turkey) who had asked him for a letter about the mysteries: "I would like to write to you of heavenly things (or of things more full of mystery), but I fear to do so, lest I should inflict injury on you who are but babes . . . you would be strangled by such things." (Ignatius, Epist. Ad Tralles, c. 5. ;Nibley: Since Cumorah p. 111 )

St. Gregory Nazianzen, Bishop of Constantinople, wrote in A.D. 379: "You have heard as much of the Mystery as we are allowed to speak openly in the ears of all; the rest will be communicated to you in private; and that you must retain within yourself... Our Mysteries are not to be known to strangers."

Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 200) made a statement: “But if there is any other matter which ought to be told, let the bishop impart it secretly to those who are communicated. He shall not tell this to any but the faithful and only after they have first been communicated. This is the white stone of which John said that there is a new name written upon it which no man knows except him who receives. ” Clement of Alexandria claimed to possess a secret tradition of knowledge (Greek gnosis) handed down from the Savior to the Apostles and on to Clement himself by way of certain of his teachers.”

Clement represents this secret discipline to which he gives the title of gnosis, or gift of knowledge, as having been conferred by our Lord, after his resurrection, on James the Just, John, and Peter, by whom it was communicated to the other Apostles; and that by these the treasure was committed to the seventy disciples, of whom Barnabas was one. The secret discipline thus instituted by Christ was familiar to those who had been his masters and preceptors.

The multitude professing Christianity were therefore divided by them into the profane, or those who were not yet admitted to the mysteries, and the initiated, or faithful and perfect. . . and as none were permitted to be present at these mysteries, as they were termed, save those whose admission into the fellowship of the church was perfect and complete, so likewise was it expected that, as a matter of duty, the most sacred silence should be observed in regard to everything connected with the celebration of them, and nothing whatever relating thereto to be committed to the ears of the profane.

Dwight Rogers

Friday, July 20 2012 @ 05:43 PM EDT
Christians today may be appalled at any suggestion that there could be more than one god or that men can become like God, or that there is any hint of polytheism in the Bible. However, this would not be the first Christian tradition of today which is at odds with Biblical fact and early teachings of the Christian Fathers and Bishops in the early Christian Church.

Jesus taught the following:

“Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

“Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

“The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God:” (John 10:31-36)

Here, the Jews wanted to stone Jesus ” for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Jesus then reminded them of their own scripture which teaches that “, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” from Psalms 82:6.

After this the Jews had to back down. They could not stone him because they knew he was right. They knew that their own scriptures teach the same thing and they had no case against Him. Jesus reminded them that God had “called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken”.

The Apostle Paul makes a similar point as recorded in the New Testament. Like Isaiah, he writes of false man-made gods in 1 Corinthians chapter 8. In addition to the false man-made gods on earth, he also writes of the existence of true gods in the heavens He says:

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords many,) But to us there is but one God.. .” (1 Cor. 8: 5-6)

Here Paul recognizes that there are both false gods on earth and true gods in the heavens, but out of them all, there is only one God for us. Some may doubt that Paul was referring to true gods when he said “in heaven” and “(as there be gods many and lords many,). Yet, among true Bible believers, who can believe that there are false gods in heaven? So, when Paul talks of gods in heaven, he can only be talking of true Gods. Here, the Apostle Paul speaking polytheistically about the gods in heaven but monotheistically when he says that only one of them is our God.

Psalms 8:4-5 teaches that man is “a little lower than the gods.” The King James Version (and most translations) give it as “lower than the angels,” but the word used in the Hebrew is gods. The Hebrew term “elohim”,or “gods” is used to describe human judges in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9. Here authorized servants of God are called “gods.” Exodus 7:1 says that Moses was to be “god to Pharaoh.” Note that these are with a small “g” recognizing the pre-eminence of the God we worship.

And Paul says in Romans 8:14-18: “For as many as are lead by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;”

And again Christ said to John the Revelator: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelations 3:21)

John says: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doeth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." (1 John 3:2-3)

In the first verses of the Bible, in the Hebrew, Moses refers to the head God who called forth the other gods. It is not rendered this way in English translations. Yet, scholars have noted that throughout the Bible there is a theme of a head God who presides over the other gods. Thus, the head God says "Let US make man in OUR image and after OUR likeness" ( Genesis 1:26-27, emphasis added)

And “let US go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." (Genesis 11:5-7, emphasis added).

SOWD is the Old Testament Hebrew word for "assembly", "circle of people in council", or "confidential talk, secret." It is similar in meaning to the New Testament "musterion" or mystery. For example, in the King James version, SOWD is translated "secret" (e.g. Amos 3:7, where it literally means "what is going on in the heavenly council")

Thus, Amos was referring to the idea that God makes known to his prophets the “secret,” or what goes on in the heavenly council. This is repeated throughout the Bible, for instance: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” (Psalms 82:1)

As one scholar notes :

"The existence of other gods is not denied in the first commandment of the decalog itself; in fact it presupposes their existence and forbids the Israelites to worship them." (Roland de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, Philadelphia, 1968, p 463)

“Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Ex. 15:11)

“For the Lord your God is God of gods, and the Lord of lords, a great God…
“Thou shalt fear the Lord they God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.
“He is thy praise, and he is thy God…” (Deu. 11:17, 20-21)

“God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” (Ps. 82:1) Or as it is rendered in the NRSV translation “God has taken His place in the divine council, in the midst of the gods he holds judgment.”

“Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.” (Ps. 86:8)

“For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all gods.” (Ps. 97:9)

“For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.” (Ps. 135:5)

“O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth forever. O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth forever.” (Ps. 136: 2-3)

“For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God.” (Deut. 10:17)

Note what early Christian doctrine really was. Let’s read what the early Christian fathers in the first several centuries following the time of the Apostles taught as Christian doctrine. These early Bishops and respected orthodox theologians, were good Mormons.

“God became man that man might become God.” (St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinis in: Philip Barlow, doctoral candidate in American Religious History at Harvard: Unorthodox Orthodoxy: The Idea of Deification in Christian History, Sunstone, Vol 8, no 5, pp 13-16))

“He became what we are, in order that we might be what he is.” (Maximus in Ibid)
“I may become God to the same extent as he became man.” (Gregory of Nazianus in Ibid)
“The Holy Spirit aids man in being made God.” (Basil of Ceasarea in Ibid)

“Flee with all in your power from being man and make haste to become gods.” (Origin in Ibid)
Speaking of the soul which seeks to become pure Clement of Alexandria said: “The soul, receiving the Lord’s power, studies to become a god.” (Clement in Ibid)

It has been claimed by some that this doctrine of becoming gods is an altogether pagan doctrine that blasphemes the majesty of God. Not all Christians have thought so, however. Irenaeus [A.D. 130-200], Bishop of Lyons, was instructed by Polycarp. Polycarp was personally instructed by the apostle John. Irenaeus became a prominent bishop in the Church in the second century. He became the most important Christian theologian of his time, and is considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity. Yet he taught:

“If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, bk. 5, pref.)
Irenaeus also taught: “We were not made gods at our beginning, but first we were made men, then, in the end, gods.” (Ibid, also in (Bettenson, H., The Early Christian Fathers, [London: Oxford University Press, 1956,] p. 94.)

Also: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, of his boundless love, became what we are that he might make us what he himself is.” (Irenaeus in Henry Betteson, The Early Christian Fathers, London: Oxford University Press, 1956, p 106)

And: “While man gradually advances and mounts towards perfection; that is, he approaches the eternal. The eternal is perfect; and this is God. Man has first to come into being, then to progress, and by progressing come to manhood, and having reached manhood to increase, and thus increasing to persevere, and persevering to be glorified, and thus see his Lord.” (Irenaeus in Henry Betteson, The Early Christian Fathers, London: Oxford University Press, 1956, p. 94)

And :”How then will any be a god, if he has not first been made a man? How immortal, if he has not in his mortal nature obeyed his maker? For one’s duty is first to observe the discipline of man and thereafter to share in the glory of God.” (Ibid, pp. 95-96)

Indeed, Saint Irenaeus had more to say on the subject of deification:

“Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, ‘I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.’ For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that, what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies,4.38. Cp. 4.11)

“But man receives progression and increase towards God. For God is always the same, so also man, when found in God, shall always progress toward God.” (Ibid)

In the second century, Saint Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks, 1; Also in Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 1, (8,4), in Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, p. 244.)
Clement also said that “If one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God.. His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, ‘Men are gods, and gods are men.’” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1 See also Clement, Stromateis, 23.)

And also: “‘To him who has shall be added;’ knowledge to faith, love to knowledge, and love to inheritance. And this happens when a man depends on the Lord through faith, through knowledge, and love, and ascends with him to the place where God is. . . .because of their close intimacy with the Lord there awaits them a restoration to eternal contemplation; and they have received the title of ‘gods,’ since they are destined to be enthroned with other ‘gods’ who are ranked next below the Savior.” (Ibid pp. 243-244)

Still in the second century, Saint Justin Martyr insisted that in the beginning men were “made like God, free from suffering and death,” and that they are “thus deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 124)

Here is an interesting quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, an early Christian bishop. This fascinating quote is from his Prologue to the Catechetical Lectures:
“When thou shalt have heard what is written concerning the mysteries, then wilt thou understand things which thou knewest not. And think not that thou receivest a small thing: though a miserable man, thou receivest one of God’s titles. Hear St. Paul saying, God is faithful. Hear another Scripture saying, God is faithful and just. Foreseeing this, the Psalmist, because men are to receive a title of God, spoke thus in the person of God: I said, Ye are Gods, and are all sons of the Most High. But beware lest thou have the title of ‘faithful,’ but the will of the faithless. Thou hast entered into a contest, toil on through the race: another such opportunity thou canst not have. Were it thy wedding-day before thee, wouldest thou not have disregarded all else, and set about the preparation for the feast? And on the eve of consecrating thy soul to the heavenly Bridegroom, wilt thou not cease from carnal things, that thou mayest win spiritual?”

JEROME (the Pope’s secretary)
St. Jerome explains Psalms 82:6 as did other early Christian fathers:
“‘I said: You are gods, all of you sons of the Most High.’ Let Eunomius hear this, let Arius, who say that the Son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by nature, but by grace. ‘But to as many as receive him he gave power of becoming sons of god.’ I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. ‘I said: Ye are gods, all of you sons of the Most High.’ Imagine the grandeur of our dignity; we are called gods and sons! I have made you gods just as I made Moses a god to pharaoh, so that after you are gods, you may be made worthy to be sons of God. Reflect upon the divine words: ‘with God there is no respector of persons.’ God did not say: ‘I said you are gods,’ you kings and princes; but ‘all’ to whom I have given equally a body, soul, a spirit, I have given equally divinity and adoption. We are ‘all’ born equals. Our humanity is one of equality.” (Jerome, The Homilies of Saint Jerome, Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1964 pp 106-107)

Jerome later indicates that after having become “mere men”, those men can still become gods. He quotes the scriptures and explains: “‘Give thanks to the God of Gods.’ The prophet is referring to those gods of whom it is written: I said: ‘You are gods;’ and again: ‘God arises in the divine assembly.’ They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice and are become perfect, are gods and the sons of the Most High.” (Ibid p. 353)

“If, indeed, you follow those who did not at the time endure the Lord when showing Himself to be the Son of God, because they would not believe Him to be the Lord, then call to mind along with them the passage where it is written, ‘I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are children of the Most High;’ and again, ‘God standeth in the congregation of the gods:’ in order that, if the scripture has not been afraid to designate as gods human beings, who have become sons of God by faith , you may be sure that the same scripture has with greater propriety conferred the name of the Lord on the true and one-only Son of God.” (Tertullian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids Michigan: Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1885, vol. 3, p. 608)

Like other early Church Fathers, Origen, [A.D. 185-254], also teaches the same Biblical doctrine, of Genesis 1:1, that there is a head god who is “Lord of gods”, Origin teaches that there is a distinction to be made between “the God” and others who are also “gods.”

“Everything which, without being ‘God-in-himself’ is deified by participation in his godhead, should strictly be called ‘God,’ not ‘the God.’ The ‘firstborn of all creation,.’ Since he by being ‘with God’ first gathered godhood to himself, is therefore in every way more honored than others besides himself, who are ‘gods’ of whom God is the God, as it is said, ‘God the Lord of gods spoke and called the world.’ For it was through his ministry that they became gods, since he drew divinity from God for them to be deified, and of his kindness generously shared it with them. God, then, is the true God, and those who through him are fashioned into gods are copies of the prototype.” (Ibid p. 324)

Origen went on to teach: “The Father, then, is proclaimed as the one true God; but besides the true God are many who become gods by participating in God.” (Ibid)

Origen claimed that God “will be ‘all’ in each individual in this way: when all which any rational understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or understand, or think, will be wholly God….” (Origen, De Principiis 3:6:3, in Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, p. 345.)

Finally, Saint Augustine himself, the greatest of the Christian Fathers, said:
“But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. ‘For he has given them power to become the sons of God’ [John 1:12] If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.” (Augustine, On the Psalms, 50.2 Augustine insists that such individuals are gods by grace rather than by nature, but they are gods nevertheless.)

“We find it in early Orthodox tradition as well, for the ‘chief idea of St. Maximus [who died in 662 A.D.] as of all of Eastern theology, [was] the idea of deification” (S.L. Epifanovic as quoted by Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). The Christian Tradition, vol. 2, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1974, p. 10, as cited by Peterson and Ricks, p. 79).

As Paul taught in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, there is a duality to Christianity. Paul taught that there are many gods but only one that we worship, only one that is our God. Mormons hold to the doctrine of Paul and Jesus and not necessarily the doctrine of the “various Christian churches” because they no longer teach what Jesus and Paul taught. We do.

To paraphrase Origin’s thoughts in the words of Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) Apostle, Bruce R. McConkie: "There is and can only be one who is supreme, who is the head and to whom all others are subject". Becoming like God is not saying we will ever be equal to Him, frankly we won't and can't He, and only He, will forever be worshipped by us.”

Joseph Smith once said “Mormons are the only ones who believe in the Bible. Everyone else believes in their interpretation of the Bible.” That probably sounds like a bold and even arrogant statement and I can understand how it would be offensive to some people. It is not our intention to offend people. However, if you look at real facts, real history, what the Bible and the early Christians really say (only some of which I have pointed out above) it turns out that Joseph is right. People regularly can’t see what the Bible really says because it is filtered through the lens of later orthodoxy and the extra-Biblical creeds. The divergence of Mormon theology from the theology of other Christians lies in the fact that Christianity has been modified and changed over the centuries and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is original Christianity restored to the earth. So, of course, there are differences. But I think Christians down through the ages have done the best they can without current revelation and have done remarkably well in many cases. It is, in a way, strange, that they criticize us for believing original Christianity. Seems to me that they would want to do the same instead of preferring the later creeds and counsels over the earlier version of Christianity.

If Athanasius, Augustine, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Cyril, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Clement of Alexandria Jerome, Terfullian, even Augustin, and others, including C.S. Lewis in modern days, can teach the doctrine of deification, not to mention that Jesus Himself taught it as well as Paul and John and yet they are still accepted as orthodox Christians, why are Latter-day Saints said to be non-Christian for the same belief? The further back in time you go, especially when you get back before the creeds, the more Mormon-like the Christian doctrines become. Some of our doctrines are clearly at odds with mainstream churches of today, but that’s not because Joseph Smith was making up ludicrous doctrine. Long lost but true doctrines were restored through him as a divinely authorized prophet.

And if popular Christian Orthodoxy continues to hold to the current tradition of later ideas and creeds, then what are they to do with the teachings of the Early Christians, the apostles, and even Jesus Himself who did not teach the creeds? If Mormons are wrong and not Christian than so were the early Christians who taught the same things that Mormons are teaching. If Mormons are not Christian for these beliefs then this makes the Apostles and even Jesus Himself not Christian. Which Christians are right; the later Christians or the Early Christians? Who is right, Jesus, Paul, John, the Psalmist, and the early Christian fathers, or Christians who believe traditions developed centuries after Christ and the Apostles?

Pauli S.

Friday, July 20 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT
The more I read your comments, the more it sounds like a cult.

Linda Fiatoa

Friday, July 20 2012 @ 07:39 PM EDT
Tricia Erickson is one of the most virulent anti-Mormons, and making money on it. She says that's not her main goal, but she lies over and over and over about what Mormons believe, so I don't know I can believe ANYthing she says. Other LDS have posted here where she is wrong, which is most of it.
Mormons are not liars. Mormons know what we believe. Tricia Erickson is not just a former member, she hates the LDS church, and wants everyone else to hate it too. Even if what they are hating is not what we believe.
Trinity Presbyterian Church
Join the purpose driven church exercising faith, hope, and love because nothing else matters...
StoneMicro Web Technologies
Dynamic Website Development, Content Management System, Blogs, Web design, Web hosting services
Sponsor ParamusPost