Mustakrakish

I would like to ask the home teachers a paradoxical question. I was considering D&C 84 saying that no one who received and then denied the Melchesidek priesthood can receive forgiveness in this life or in the life to come and how it can be reconciled to the story of the prodigal son.

As most men over 18 have the Melchesidek priesthood, doesn't that mean that if anyone is over 18 and denies the LDS church, they cannot return like the prodigal son?

Before Mormonanswerman blocked me on youtube, he tried to say that I was in danger of going to outer darkness, because those who deny the truth after receiving it were supposed to go there. When I said that it said that I would not be able to get forgiveness in this world or the world to come, citing the scripture, he changed his tune.

As someone who left Mormonism, isn't the worst that I can logically do eternity in a paradise so glorious that it 'surpasses all understanding'? Do you think that someone who is content with a spartan lifestyle would be content with the paradise so glorious that it 'surpasses all understanding'?

In this line of reasoning, his argument was that the eternal torture described in Alma 34 was the painful knowledge that you could have had it so much better, when you have the paradise that 'surpasses all understanding'.

Am I going to outer darkness? Is it outer darkness that Alma was describing as the final state of the wicked, in which the 'devil doth seal you his'? If any LDS leader speaks about outer darkness is it relevant? My understanding is that it's relatively hard to get to outer darkness.

The Lord your God is one Lord.

I know that Mormons currently teach that Jesus was Jehovah and the Father is named Elohim . . . In Hebrew, this reads The Jehovah, your Elohim is one Jehovah.

Could someone disambiguate that verse?

There are quite a few people out there who are claiming that God ordained marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Roman gods had no problem with marriage between a man and a small boy (see Caligula).

The gods of Hammarubi supported marriage as being between a man and a woman . . . that was from before Judaism. However, it supported civil unions.

Judaism is relatively young, considering the age of the earth. Is there any evidence that marriage existed before there is documentary evidence that Judaism existed? In Hammarubi's code, was marriage not ordained by God?

Moroni 8:18 states that God has been, will be the same from all eternity to all eternity.

In Alma 11, when Zeezrom asks if there is more than one God, Amulek says that there is only one God. There are further things from this chapter that need addressed, but we will leave it at this for now.

Chapter 47 of the Gospel Principles manual quotes from the King Follet discourse. Does that make the King Follet discourse fair game to consider Mormon Doctrine, or does that only make the portion quoted count?

Did God have a God? If God became a God, he's not really the same from all eternity to all eternity, is he? Did God have a God? If he did have a God. Does that mean that Amulek lied to Zeezrom? Isaiah quotes the Lord as saying that "Ye are my witnesses, is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any." Isa 43

In Isa 45, the Lord says ""I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else"

Is the sermon quoted in the Gospel Principles manual, which says that God became a God accurate? Since he progressed to Godhood, and there is only one God, was he an atheist when he was growing up on a former world? Was he the only one who made it to Godhood? If he was an atheist (he didn't have a God), is it fair of him to expect worship?

Salem, MA would be given to the LDS church, outright and that they would find money to pay their debts from the 1830's, in gold and silver . . . as Salem, MA has never been property of the church, was that a false prophecy?

The GP manual says that the prophet can never lead the church astray.

Both Brigham Young and John Taylor are on the record as having said that if the church stops practicing polygamy, they are in apostasy. Brigham Young led John Taylor astray, apparently, and was responsible for the formation of the FLDS sect of Mormonism.

Orson Pratt was the first to ascribe black people's skin and their poor lot in life to misconduct in the preexistence. This was repeated until the death of Joseph Fielding Smith, most notably August 17, 1949 in the official statement of the first presidency on the subject.

Were these prophets leading each other astray with false doctrine, or was it true doctrine that your church has now abandoned?

Amos 3:7 is cited as demonstrating the necessity of a prophet.

Amos 3:7 says that surely God won't do anything unless he tells the prophet, citing natural disasters and enemy attacks as things that he won't' do without warning the prophets. The prophets in and around that time were pretty specific concerning the enemies that were going to attack; when was the last time that your prophets fulfilled the role ascribed in Amos 3?

The only prophecy that I can think of that was fulfilled was GBH's "There will be 100 temples by the year 2000". Could you respond to my claim that your prophets don't fulfill the biblical role?

Thank ye; I just want to prepare for the responses that I get from the Home Teachers.

Just one question. Nephi said that God gives no commandment unto the children of men that they can't keep. At the same time, he says that if Adam and Eve didn't fail to keep the "do not eat of the tree" command, they wouldn't have been able to fulfill the be fruitful and multiply command.

Question is: was Nephi wrong when he said that God gives no commandment unto the children of men, save he should provide a way?

2 Nephi 2:22-25 and 1 Nephi 3:7. Is it possible for them to have kept both of those commands?

Working off of the 1997 copyright manual that was used up until 2008, so cut me some slack.

My position is that the Holy Ghost came at the day of pentacaust, per Acts 2. Most Christians fully agree with me.

The Gospel princples manual says that Adam had it and that the Nephites gave it through laying on of hands 600 years before Christ's ministry began.

Jesus states that it had not yet come in John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."

A similar sentiment is expressed in John 14:16&26.

I have given the Home Teachers these views and asked them to respond, could you give me responses that I should prepare for?

Thank you for trying to dispute my argument against Ch 1; I would like you to help me defend against the counters for my argument against ch 2.

Gospel Principles ch 2 teaches that we are all Children of God. I believe that this is quite bad, as it goes against the idea that we need to BECOME children of God.

In John 3:13, Jesus says that no one came down from a preexistence. In John 8:41 he even calls the Pharisees children of the devil.

In John 1:12, it says that we may BECOME children of God and in Romans 8:15, Ephesians 1:5 and the last half of Ephesians 3, it says that we need to be adopted. I believe that saying that we are preexistent children of God goes against this idea. How will the Home teachers counter it?

I was approached by home-teachers, trying to get me to come to church again. I informed them that I was having trouble believing, and I wrote arguments against every chapter for them to address. So that I have an idea what I will encounter, I would like for you to counter my position that the image of God is not the physical likeness of God.

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither

were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart

was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And

changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible

man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

I've heard many Mormons attempt to assign metaphors to Smith in a way that cannot be reconciled with the context and I've heard many Mormons say that the voice from the dust was the Book of Mormon . . . verses 1-3 are obviously talking about the Jews being attacked; verse 4 seems to be about them being humbled; verses 11-12 are often taken out of context to mean Smith and Anton, but that would mean that Anton examined the Book rather than a fragment of paper that had some copied characters and that Anton saw the Book before Smith. I dreamed that I ate and drank last night and wasn't satisified when I woke up--does that mean that I am the fulfillment of verse 7?

For the length of time that humanity has recorded, there hasn't been any notable evolution; how much would that require to have happened in the 2000 years for which we don't have a complete history?

Gospel Principles said, in all versions published before Jan 2010, "This is the way our Heavenly Father became God." when referring to the plan of salvation.

The King Follett discourse quotes Joseph Smith as saying "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea, and will take away and do away the vail, so that you may see."

Can someone reconcile these concepts?

When he had spent two months working on the portion that was later sealed, when the missing 116 pages were lost, 1 year before?

The story about Joseph Smith reading the Book of Mormon out of a hat, when Apostles Russel M Nelson and Richard Lloyd Anderson addressed it in the July 1993 and September 1977 Ensigns under the titles of "A Treasured Testament" and "By the Gift and Power of God" respectively?

Presidential candidate edition with a focus on civics and history? I think that they should AND that this program could be used to halve the size of the republican primaries, if failure in this program resulted in elimination of the candidacy.

Bachmann, Palin, Romney, Huntsman, Ron Paul--just to add a few search hits.

"I prophecy in the name of the Lord God of Israel, unless the United States redress the wrongs committed upon the Saints in the state of Missouri and punish the crimes committed by her officers that in a few years the government will be utterly overthrown and wasted, and there will not be so much as a potsherd left for their wickedness in permitting the murder of men, women and children," would that be a false prophecy?

I am including the "Three distinct personages and three Gods" that Joseph Smith is recorded as identifying the trinity as in Chapter 2 of the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith manual and the gods that D&C 132 and Gospel Principles ch 47 say that you can become. Also, CH 47 said that God became God, in the same manner that you may, until December 2009--so you have to take into account his god and anyone who became a god in the same manner as he did.

Mormons who consider yourself Christian--do you consider polygamist FLDS Mormons? Many would argue that your doctrine is infinitely closer to theirs than your doctrine is to Christianity. I've seen many Mormons gripe about that title being associated with FLDS, is it really fair to do that and demand to be called Christian?