Facts MORMONS Won't Tell You................

No, the quintessential meaning of Christianity is the LOVE and AT-ONENESS (At-one-ment) of Christ. NOT that he suffered and died for us, but that he showed us how HE LIVED.

There have been many many people who have died for others...even more painfully than Christ did. Yet Christians do not worship them. The fact that Jesus died on the Cross is not the miraculous thing...but that HE ROSE AGAIN.

This is what Mormons believe...

Yes, OP...those things are true, as far as I know. But...I think there are DEEPER meanings. Also, Mormons aren't unique in keeping these things secret, or believing their beliefs are the only correct beliefs, etc. That can be said of all religions.

I think the important thing is to take their beliefs, and try to decipher what those beliefs might mean SYMBOLICALLY. What information is being imparted? The literal story, as in other religions, is a veil. One must read between the lines, and decipher the coded messages contained therein.

I disagree. What makes Christianity "Christianity" is that Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, died for our sins on the cross, thus allowing all who believe in him eternal life. -- (as the story goes). So I find the lack of crosses inside or outside of LDS churches and temples intriguing. Lots of famous characters in history taught love, forgiveness, etc. What makes the religion of Christianity unique is that the only begotten son of God was sacrificed so that we may have eternal life. Of course, I personally believe this to be purely metaphorical and symbolic, but that's how the story goes.

And again, I'm not bashing Mormonism by saying this. It's just that I don't think Mormonism is what it claims to be (as I don't believe that most all religions are what they claim to be). I believe Mormonism to be the current inheritor as the main vehicle for the dissemination of knowledge from the ancient mystery schools. But, you can't just come out and say that. Never has that been the case. You have to take a currently existing social or religious framework, and tweak it or add to it, as LDS has done with Christianity. In effect, using the overarching religion as cover.

To Mormons reading this, I'm curious what you're taught about the Seer stone. This is not to "bash" you. I'm curious, because I think the Seer Stone is symbolic for something deeper, more esoteric. In short, I think there's truth to it, but I think it's not meant to be taken literally....at least not by those with the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

Regarding the lack of crosses on display in mormon temples, don't you think the last thing Jesus wants to see when He returns is a cross?

I absolutely agree and I have studied the beliefs on a deeper level. This post is geared toward those that have no intention in looking any further than they have to be somewhat knowledgeable on what the LDS Church believes and doesn't believe. I will leave the more thorough delving into of this particular religion (and others) for another post, but by all means add what you want to the thread, it's much appreciated.

I hear ya. I understand. :)

It's a good thread. It gets people's attention, and it allows a deeper delving into LDS beliefs, and what they might be symbolic of. I gave it 5*s.

Speak, Mormons. Speaketh! :)

sounds very true!

I do not trust the Mormon cult at all.

*** Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross? ***
“THE cross,” says one encyclopedia, “is the most familiar symbol of Christianity.” Many religious paintings and works of art depict Jesus nailed to a cross. Why is this symbol so widespread in Christendom? Did Jesus really die on a cross?

Many would point to the Bible for the answer. For example, according to the King James Version, at the time of Jesus’ execution, onlookers made fun of Jesus and challenged him to “come down from the cross.” (Matthew 27:40, 42) Many other Bible translations read similarly. Today’s English Version says of Simon from Cyrene: “The soldiers forced him to carry Jesus’ cross.” (Mark 15:21) In these verses, the word “cross” is translated from the Greek word stauros′. Is there a solid basis for such a translation? What is the meaning of that original word?

Was It a Cross?
According to Greek scholar W. E. Vine, stauros′ “denotes, primarily, an upright pale or stake. On such malefactors were nailed for execution. Both the noun and the verb stauroō, to fasten to a stake or pale, are originally to be distinguished from the ecclesiastical form of a two beamed cross.”

The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says that the word stauros′ “properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling a piece of ground.” The dictionary continues: “Even amongst the Romans the crux (Latin, from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.” Thus, it is not surprising that The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Certain it is, at any rate, that the cross originally consisted of a simple vertical pole, sharpened at its upper end.”

There is another Greek word, xy′lon, that Bible writers used to describe the instrument of Jesus’ execution. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament defines xy′lon as “a piece of timber, a wooden stake.” It goes on to say that like stauros′, xy′lon “was simply an upright pale or stake to which the Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified.”

In line with this, we note that the King James Version reads at Acts 5:30: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree [xy′lon].” Other versions, though rendering stauros′ as “cross,” also translate xy′lon as “tree.” At Acts 13:29, The Jerusalem Bible says of Jesus: “When they had carried out everything that scripture foretells about him they took him down from the tree [xy′lon] and buried him.”

In view of the basic meaning of the Greek words stauros′ and xy′lon, the Critical Lexicon and Concordance, quoted above, observes: “Both words disagree with the modern idea of a cross, with which we have become familiarised by pictures.” In other words, what the Gospel writers described using the word stauros′ was nothing like what people today call a cross. Appropriately, therefore, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures uses the expression “torture stake” at Matthew 27:40-42 and in other places where the word stauros′ appears. Similarly, the Complete Jewish Bible uses the expression “execution stake.”

Origin of the Cross
If the Bible does not really say that Jesus was executed on a cross, then why do all the churches that claim to teach and follow the Bible—Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox—adorn their buildings with the cross and use it as a symbol of their faith? How did the cross come to be such a popular symbol?

The answer is that the cross is venerated not only by churchgoers who claim to follow the Bible but also by people far removed from the Bible and whose worship far predates that of “Christian” churches. Numerous religious reference works acknowledge that the use of crosses in various shapes and forms goes back to remote periods of human civilization. For example, ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and depictions of their gods and goddesses often show a cross in the shape of a T with a circle at the top. It is called the ansate, or handle-shaped, cross and is thought to be a symbol of life. In time, this form of the cross was adopted and used extensively by the Coptic Church and others.

According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, “the primitive form of the cross seems to have been that of the so-called ‘gamma’ cross (crux gammata), better known to Orientalists and students of prehistoric archæology by its Sanskrit name, swastika.” This sign was widely used among Hindus in India and Buddhists throughout Asia and is still seen in decorations and ornaments in those areas.

It is not known exactly when the cross was adopted as a “Christian” symbol. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words states: “By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols,” including the cross.

Some writers point to the claim by the sun-god worshipper Constantine that in 312 C.E., while on one of his military campaigns, he had a vision of a cross superimposed on the sun along with the motto in Latin “in hoc vince” (by this conquer). Some time later, a “Christian” sign was emblazoned on the standards, shields, and armor of his army. (Pictured at left.) Constantine purportedly converted to Christianity, though he was not baptized until 25 years later on his deathbed. His motive was questioned by some. “He acted rather as if he were converting Christianity into what he thought most likely to be accepted by his subjects as a catholic [universal] religion, than as if he had been converted to the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene,” says the book The Non-Christian Cross.

Since then, crosses of many forms and shapes have come into use. For example, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary tells us that what is called St. Anthony’s cross “was shaped like a capital T, thought by some to be derived from the symbol of the [Babylonian] god Tammuz, the letter tau.” There was also the St. Andrew’s cross, which is in the shape of the letter X, and the familiar two-beamed cross with the crossbar lowered. This latter type, called the Latin cross, is erroneously “held by tradition to be the shape of the cross on which our Lord died.”

What First-Century Christians Believed
The Bible shows that in the first century, many who heard Jesus became believers and accepted the redeeming value of his sacrificial death. After the apostle Paul preached to the Jews in Corinth, proving that Jesus is the Christ, says the Bible, “Crispus the presiding officer of the synagogue became a believer in the Lord, and so did all his household. And many of the Corinthians that heard began to believe and be baptized.” (Acts 18:5-8) Instead of introducing some religious symbol or image into their worship, Paul instructed his fellow Christians to “flee from idolatry” and from any other practice drawn from pagan worship.—1 Corinthians 10:14.

Historians and researchers have found no evidence to validate the use of the cross among the early Christians. Interestingly, the book History of the Cross quotes one late 17th-century writer who asked: “Can it be pleasing to the blessed Jesus to behold His disciples glorying in the image of that instrument of capital punishment on which He [supposedly] patiently and innocently suffered, despising the shame?” How would you answer?

Worship acceptable to God does not require objects or images. “What agreement does God’s temple have with idols?” Paul asked. (2 Corinthians 6:14-16) Nowhere do the Scriptures suggest that a Christian’s worship should include the use of a likeness of the instrument used to impale Jesus.—Compare Matthew 15:3; Mark 7:13.

What, then, is the identifying mark of true Christians? Not the cross or any other symbol, but love. Jesus told his followers: “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”—John 13:34, 35.

You don't find the cross idolatry?

The same with pictures of a supposed jesus or a figure on a cross?

There is a lot of things mormons won't tell you and that right there should be a clue! Joseph Smith was a sadist and a hore monger! In the early days of the church when a man and woman were married in the temple the "elders" a select few of the highest, would take the newly married girl upstairs for a pure sperm injection by these most loyal elders, to insure that her first child is PURE MORMON. Do they still practice this? Who knows, if they won't tell then maybe they are! If a cult operates under the mask of christianity then that alone should scare the shit out of you. As for god and all that jazz, there is zero proof that any god of any kind has ever existed. gods are myths, jesus is a myth. Myths can't rule anything.

If the LDS wanted to be taken as a legitimate religion, they would not engage in secret ceremonies and have temples that only the initiated can enter. Their whole 'religion' smacks of occult.

I mean seriously, you have to know the SECRET HANDSHAKE to get into heaven?!

Last Edited by Billy_Sastard on 10/03/2012 04:50 PM

I am a Mormon and, while I can tell you that there are a lot of peculiar things about my religion, I can tell you that the above post is pure BS. Nothing of the kind has ever happened in the LDS Church, either during the 19th Century or today.

I think that the Mormon Church might have some Truth in it. But I also think that it has been infiltrated by Gadianton Robbers. I think that Mitt Romney and his kind are chief among these Robbers. It is a scary time for all.

yeah but the current regime will soon be chopping off heads if you don't tow the line....

you have to have a temple recommend to go. its a holy place were no unclean person can enter. the so called secret ceremonies are individual based and between Them and God.

just cause its a place not everyone is allowed in does not stick of occult.

No, but the secret handshake to get into heaven does!!!

to be baptized in the LDS faith you must have a testimony. stating " i think the mormon church might have some truths" and above stating your a Mormon. is in direct confrontation.

???????

It is an interesting time in the LDS Church. If you believe what you read on the internet, people are, apparently, leaving the Church in droves. I am not bothered by things that happened in the early history of the LDS Church. Joseph Smith appears to have become something of a philanderer. That does not affect his truth claims regarding the Book of Mormon one way or the other. What bothers me more than the underlying history is the LDS Church's refusal to acknowledge it. Having the truth of the matter but teaching a sanitized, glossed-over version of history is much more damning to me than the history itself.

There is a rumor going around the internet that one of the LDS Twelve Apostles has been telling people that Thomas S. Monson, the current LDS Prophet, has received a revelation that will have a great impact on all of the members of the LDS Church and that he will reveal it in this weekend's General Conference. Faith promoting rumor, or what? It will be interesting to see.

Knock and it shall be opened to you Billy....

There are some things held very close and sacred. i respect that. and find it hard to figure out why others can't

I believe in spirituality, not woo woo rituals required to get closer to god... Spirituality is about the mind and conciousness, not about physical actions performed with material objects. All forms of ritual (not just mormon) are creations of man to mislead people into believing they have engaged in some sort of mystical activities, and serve no purpose beyond getting people to follow the leader.

wft

Last Edited by Billy_Sastard on 10/03/2012 05:03 PM

doublepost :\

I agree with you completely. I have been a member of the Church all my life. I was baptized at the age of eight before I really understood anything about the Church. I went inactive for a time during my teenage years. I made the decision to find out for myself if the Church was true and received that witness from the Holy Spirit when I was 17. I served a mission in Brazil and had great success. I was married in the temple and continue to go to church nearly every Sunday.

And while I know that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, I have issues with the modern church. It is run too much like a corporation and not like a ministry. When Mitt Romney is the face of Mormonism, you have to wonder what direction the Church is heading. When the sons of General Authorities are making millions from Mitt Romney's dirty dealings, you have to wonder about the direction the Church is heading. While people quote the White Horse Prophecy and attribute it to Mitt Romney, I prefer to quote Brigham Young's other prophecy, where he said, "Brethren, this church will be led onto the very brink of hell by the leaders of this people, then God will send the one mighty and strong spoken of in the 85th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, to save and redeem this church." Which comes first? The Mormon Elders saving the Constitution? Or the One Mighty and Strong delivering the Church from the brink of hell? I think we're closer to the brink of hell than we are to "the Mormon Elders" having the capacity to save the country. The Church needs to get back to being a church and away from being an extension of the Republican Party.

That first sentence should have read "I disagree with you completely." Not sure what happened there.