Tags for this video have been changed from 'fill this in later, Tales Of Mere Existence' to 'fill this in later, Tales Of Mere Existence, lev yilmaz, procrastination' - edited by demon_ix

Tags for this video have been changed from 'fill this in later' to 'fill this in later, Tales Of Mere Existence' - edited by Zifnab

Alright, I can roll with this. Just to let you know, I’m not going to go to any internet sources to argue against points you make here. This is all out of my own little brain, so I apologize if it is vague...or whatever.

First of all, Qruel, you describe the differences between the CJCLDS and “biblical Christianity”. Would you mind telling me what biblical Christianity is? As far as I can tell, interpretations of the Bible among Christians are hugely varied. Not only that, but there are several versions of the Bible that are vastly contradictory to one another. Some denominations have gone so far as to simplify the Bible into more understandable language. I haven’t seen any big objections to that sort of thing going on. You asked, “How would you feel if one day someone all of a sudden added religious books onto biblical scripture that changed much of the philosophy of the Christian faith and even went as far as to say that the bible has been corrupted and that the new books were now the "true" word of god.” I ask you how you would feel if God felt that it was time to give us additional scripture. What if at this time He chose to give us scripture that is more applicable to our day, more concise, more clear, more easy to understand? Anyone who has ever read the Bible on their own knows that it can be hard to understand and that it often seems to contradict itself. What if He restored prophets to the Earth? What if modern revelation exists just as it did long ago? Nobody “changed” anything here, Qruel. The Bible HAS been corrupted. It’s made obvious simply by the fact that there are different versions! Why is it so ridiculous to suppose that there is no one translation of the Bible that is entirely accurate? It’s been a long time since it was written. By stating that we believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly, we are not disqualifying the Bible! We love and use the Bible every day! I spent two years of my life studying it in high school, and a semester in college. I study it every week in church. I read it before bed. We read and believe in the King James Version. We just don’t want to state that we believe false translations of the Bible. What the heck is so offensive about that?

“It should be noted that the LDS Church frequently uses terminology similar to that of biblical Christianity in communicating its doctrines, but often with drastically different meanings or connotations. This tends to obscure the fundamental differences in doctrine to the casual observer.”

Yes, we interpret the Bible very differently from most people. Catholics interpret the Bible very differently from most people. Baptists interpret the Bible very differently from most people. Presbyterians interpret the Bible very differently from most people.

As I’ve stated before, there are many interpretations of the Bible. I love how Christians all of a sudden lump themselves together when they talk about how LDS doctrine “drastically differs” from mainstream Christianity. Since when did all those Christians agree with each other? What is mainstream Christianity? What does it believe? Sure, you can make some generalizations, but even the nature of the Trinity is disputed among Christians. The Book of Mormon does not contradict the Bible as we interpret it. The Bible doesn’t contradict Christian doctrine as they interpret it. Big whoop-di-doo. Now all of a sudden our interpretation is bogus just because it isn’t popular. Alrighty, then.

“This teaching is generally not publically promoted in modern times, nevertheless, the internal teachings state that the other denominations are "abominations" to God, and that the LDS Church is the only true church that bears the "restored" gospel of Jesus Christ.”

This is a blatant attempt to make it seem like we’re ashamed of the belief that we are the only true church. I certainly am not afraid of that principle. I’m proud of it. Any church that doesn’t believe it is the only true church is full of it. Logically, rationally, there cannot be more than one truth about any one thing. There cannot be three distinct AND true ways to interpret the nature of God. It’s ridiculous. Any church that claims to preach truth and only truth must logically claim that it is the ONLY truth. We may not blab about it all the time because we don’t want to offend people. Any member of the church who seeks to apologize for this doctrine is missing the point. The opposite of truth is lies. Lies are an abomination. I’m sorry if calling other churches an abomination to God hurts people's feelings.

“The LDS Church teaches that all humans existed prior to life on earth as the "spirit children" of the Heavenly Father (and his wife/wives) in heaven, and that our earthly birth came about when our spirit willingly chose to inhabit a physical body on earth.”

This is just a difference in interpretation of the doctrine that we are all children of God. We take it more literally. This doctrine can be backed up by the Bible. I don’t think any more needs to be said on the topic.

“LDS theology states that God (or more commonly referred to as "Heavenly Father") is an exalted and glorified man, that he has a physical (albeit immortal) body. It is also taught that qualifying Mormons can also become gods, just like the Heavenly Father, in the next life, and produce spirit offspring (presumably to populate another earth.). The doctrine of the Trinity as accepted by Biblical Christianity is rejected by LDS theology. The LDS Church teaches that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are "spirit children" of God, and that Jesus is unique in that he is also the fleshly son of God (conceived by a physical union of the Heavenly Father and Mary). It is also taught that Lucifer, or Satan, is also one of the Heavenly Father's spirit-children, making him a "spirit brother" Jesus.”

The phrasing of the sentence, “It is also taught that qualifying Mormons can also become gods, just like the Heavenly Father…” is confusing. We believe that everyone can become gods. We also believe that baptism is a necessary ordinance in order to become a god. We believe that only through the power of God, the priesthood, can people be baptized. We also believe that the priesthood must be given by someone who has it. Before Joseph Smith restored the church, the priesthood did not exist on the Earth because it had been lost and so we believe that no one but the members of our church hold the true priesthood and the authority to baptize. So, yes, you have to become a member of our church in order to receive the ordinance of baptism in this life. But if you die without ever becoming Mormon, all is not lost. You’ve still got time.

Remind me to talk about eternal progression into gods and the separate nature of the Godhead at another time. I don’t have the energy right now and it’s going to take a lot of explanation.

“The LDS Church accepts the Book of Mormon as their primary scripture and the inspired Word of God, supplemented by the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The Bible is accepted as the Word of God only insofar as it has been translated correctly. However, the qualifier attached to the Bible substantiates a belief that the Bible has been significantly corrupted over the centuries, and is therefore not entirely reliable as the Word of God.”

“Primary scripture”? I’ve never heard that before. Can any Mormons around here tell me if they agree that the Book of Mormon is our primary scripture? I already addressed the issue of the translation of the Bible. I would like to restate that if you came to our church and saw the way that we treat the Bible you would see that we do not disqualify the Bible but that we occasionally refer to a Joseph Smith translation which usually differs only slightly, but may differ quite a bit in some cases. But, honestly, it isn’t as if we took all of the scriptures about one topic and changed them to fit into our doctrine.

“Generally speaking, prophecy is seen as progressive and changeable. New revelations are not uncommon throughout their history, and critics will point out that many of these revelations tend to be revelations of convenience in order to accommodate a particular circumstance or situation. A case in point is the revelation that allowing of African-Americans to enter the priesthood (which had been prohibited until the 1970s). Other prophecies, such as Joseph Smith's claims about what will be found on the moon, have remained (and are likely to remain) unfulfilled.”

This is where I’ll leave it for now. I’ll come back to the rest of this stuff later if a have time or the inclination. But, first, I have to break my rule and use an internet source to address the issue of moon-men. I love that little drive-by jab at Joseph Smith. I had never heard of that before so I did a search and I’m just going to post the first two relevant things I found on the topic.

“The idea that Joseph taught the moon is inhabited comes from the writing of Oliver B. Huntington in 1881 (his journal) and in 1892 (the Young Woman's Journal). Huntington claimed that Joseph Smith's father had given him a patriarchal blessing in 1837 which promised that he would preach the gospel to the moon inhabitants.
Close examination reveals that Huntington was only ten years old when he was given this blessing and that his recollections were made over fifty years later. Also, it turns out that the blessing was given by his own father, not Joseph Smith's father.
According to a copy of the blessing in the Church archives (Blessing Book, vol.9, pp.294-95), it was only one of many given the same day at the same meeting, and none were recorded in detail at the time. Orson Pratt took sketchy notes as the blessings were given, then filled in details later by consulting those who were there. An examination of the blessing shows that the recorded blessing was much more vague than Huntington remembered.
It also appears that Huntington may have picked up on a rumor that Joseph Smith had given a description of the inhabitants of the moon. This description, which Huntington recorded in his journal, is the original source of the anti-Mormon claim that Joseph described the moon inhabitants. Because his journal is also cited in a Young Woman's publication of the Church, it supposedly gives more credibility to the critics. The statement, which appeared in a two-page article by Oliver B. Huntington entitled "The Inhabitants of the Moon" in the Young Woman's Journal, is as follows:
As far back as 1837, I know that he [Joseph SmithJ said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do. That they live generally to near the age of a 1,000 years.
He described the men as averaging nearly six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style (Young Woman's Journal, Vol.3, p.263).
From what is quoted here, the most we can conclude is that 0. B. Huntington was familiar with rumors of statements that were attributed to Joseph Smith. However, there is nothing in the writings of Joseph Smith or those who recorded his words prior to his death that even hints of any these views about inhabitants on the moon. This earliest recollection was recorded in 1881, 37 years after the prophet's death.
Even if it turned out that the prophet held these views, nowhere does scripture suggest that a prophet is not allowed to speculate about things that haven't been revealed. Many people during the Nineteenth Century, both the learned and not-so-learned, were speculating on this subject. Joseph Smith's personal opinions and what he taught as revealed doctrine, however, are two entirely different things. The idea that he taught it as a revealed doctrine is based upon Oliver B. Huntington's fifty-year-old, correct or incorrect memory of his blessing, and a rumor that was current in 1881.”

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/moon.htm

President Henry B. Eyring said,
“Now what about the Prophet Joseph Smith? I don't know whether he said men live on the moon or not. But whether he did or not troubles me not in the least. A prophet is wonderful because he sometimes speaks for the Lord. This occurs on certain occasions when the Lord wills it. On other occasions, he speaks for himself, and one of the wonderful doctrines of this Church is that we don't believe in the infallibility of any mortal. If in his speculations the Prophet thought there were people on the moon, this has no effect on my belief that on other occasions, when the Lord willed it, he spoke the ideas that the Lord inspired him to say. It is for these moments of penetrating insight that I honor and follow him.”

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/moonmen.htm

I guess this is some kind of pet argument against the validity of the prophet Joseph. The website Qruel copied from is so obviously propaganda meant to hurt the CJCLDS it makes me laugh. Silliness, silliness. I think that little side note that they throw in about the moon is pretty underhanded. They probably don’t expect anybody to actually look into it. This is pretty characteristic of these websites and the people who so devoutly believe them.

I lied again. One last thing. By arguing these points, I'm attempting to show that Mormons are not Christians as Christians define themselves today. To me, Christians today represent a skewed form of Christianity. This is my personal opinion, by the way. I want to be called Christian because I am Christian. Maybe the rest of them aren't.