@@AdamEyers They are in the true restored church of Jesus Christ, and if you are looking somewhere else for them, or still looking for Elijah's return, you are looking in the wrong place!!!
I would bet money that any early Christian, Jew or Muslim, if transported to the modern day.. would not recognize their own religion. Changing is about the only thing every religion has in common
So has Christianity. It went from Priests must be celibate to ministers could be married. If you're not baptized before you die you'll be damned. To baptism is a work and works aren't needed. From homosexuality is among the worst of sins to now in some congregations having homosexuality clergy and so on.
I was born a raised in a fundamentalist Mormon group where these things are still taught. I can say that you represented these teachings very accurately and did so in a way that didn’t blow these things out of proportion. Being a fundamentalist group, they claim that the early prophets are correct and the new ones that reject those teaching are the false prophets. This video was well prepared and delivered.
@@brotherinchrist72 it's difficult to say. I no longer promote the beliefs. I have chosen to surrender these beliefs and have asked Jesus to fill the cup I once tried to fill on my own. I was raised in polygamy and have married two wives myself before God gave me an experience that radically changed me. Culturally, I am still a member, but I do not participate in the religious practices. This group still upholds all these beliefs that Brigham Young and others taught. The journals of discourses are treated like Scripture in many ways.
@@glennallred5510 I will continue to pray for you then, that the Lord will help guide you into all truths. I can't imagine what many of those experiences must have been like. Do you view the Bible as the word of God or is that still considered to have been corrupted and precious truths lost? I ask because that seems to be one of the bigger issues that many are vexed with when asked if they believe God can lie or fail, in which we know he cannot, and if God cannot lie or fail, then how can the Bible have ever been corrupted when God promised us his word would never fade away, and his Church would never fail.
@@brotherinchrist72 I appreciate the prayers. I need guidance. Yes, I Believe the Bible to be the word of God and 100% trust worthy. At this point I feel that God has told me to stay put, for reasons I'm not sure, but I hope it is to bring others to Christ.
I was taught all this back when I was growing-up in the Mormon church- 1950- 1969. I left in 2001. If I bring any of it up now I am labeled an anti-Mormon hater. Mormonism is a mess -- a mass of confusion. "God is not the author of confusion."
I was in the LDS faith from early 1980's ~ 2000's, and was taught all the same things. However in my time the violent gestures were removed in the endowment ceremony, and other changes were made. I honestly wish I had heard about the Tanners sooner, but never found any real information to learn about the Mormon history until much later after 2010.
@@grayman7208 No, God's word does not "change" but the minds of men create changes they want in order to conform to an ever changing world view. I should ask you if you have ever read the Bible, if so, then you would know that Jesus came into the world to show up that we could not keep the moral law that was given in the time of Moses, but Jesus who lived a perfect and sinless life, fulfilled the law, and brought us a new and everlasting covenant as was for shadowed by the prophets in the Old Testament.
The Lord adds line upon line and precepts upon precept, here a little and there a little. The whole history of Christianity is also a history of such development. Because Protestant churches are so fragmented and have huge confusion amongst one another, they don't really have any meaning for history or record-keeping. Hence it is almost impossible to go to the local Baptist Church and find records about what they may have talked about 200 or 300 years ago. So it is very easy to assume in a small church somewhere in the Midwest, that we have no confusion and we have never had any controversies. Because there are no people interested in trying to dig up anything about some local church of 150 people. And because most Protestant churches are fragmented into small units like these, no one has any incentive to really investigate their past teachings and their past actions and so on. Large organizations on the other hand are much easier to keep track of and look into their past. And when you have a huge historical record library, it is easy to be like the tanners and pervert whatever is being said in those records to serve your purpose. I one time did take these Tanner's claims of whatever the historical record says. Took the books and followed the sources, I noticed very quickly how bad the distortion was. They took passages from two different books and added them together to make it seem like they're talking about the same topic, and thus as if that was somehow an explanation of their own twisted interpretation. What's the difference of course with me, is that I am a student of History. I understand how history is made and how it can be interpreted and how it is used throughout different cultures. And with this I can see that Tanners would never be considered reliable historians if they wrote about any other topic except Mormonism. If their method of using the sources would be applied to the founding fathers or the history of the United States, today would be laughed and ridiculed publicly just like Fawn Brody was ridiculed and savaged by the historians of her time, when she tried to venture into the field of American history and tried to write a biography of Thomas Jefferson. But when she writes about Joseph Smith nobody seems to mind, yet her method With Smith was exactly the same as with Jefferson.
@@brotherinchrist72 "God's word does not "change" nonsense. reading the bible proves that. god's word changes throughout history as humans learned to follow his words. your example of christ fulfilling the law proves that. the sermon on the mount proves that. christ's commands to his followers proves that.
The problem with this video is that all of the five points are not doctrines that were taught by the church. Adam-god theory it's called a theory because it was Brigham Young's own ideas that he brought up a few times. But which were contested by the other apostles and also the membership by large. Some of these beliefs may have been taught by individuals in various different circumstances and settings, but they were never doctrines taught by the whole church, nor have they been doctrines. It does not follow from the quotation you gave that Adam impregnated Mary. Since Brigham Young has very specifically made this point in other talks that Mary was a virgin. You are now making your own assumptions and forcing them into Brigham Young's ideas. But this does not change the fact that the church leadership contested this from the beginning, and this has never been taught as a doctrine apart from these few talks Young gave. When it comes to the marriage of Jesus, these are again opinions of some leaders of the church but this has never been taught as a doctrine in the church. How many church members even today believe that Jesus was married as did some of the early Christians also believe the same thing as we know from the Gospel of Philip for example. But one thing that all of those Mormons who do believe in this marriage, don't necessarily agree with, is that he was a polygamist. In fact most that I have discussed with those who believe that Jesus was married, do not believe that he was polygamist. And all accept that this is not a doctrine of the church. When it comes to interpreting the past in Mormonism, Protestants have a huge problem with their assumptions of Sola scriptura. They assume that whenever Mormon apostle says something that it is a scripture in Mormonism. But there is a very clear path that has to be taken before anything can become scripture. The 12 apostles have to agree unanimously on whatever is proposed as doctrine or scripture. This has never been done on any of these five points in this video. Several early Latter-Day saints leaders had unique perspectives on many things, it does not make those things doctrines. Those are things that people might have discussed and speculated about, but that is all it is. I have had views concerning Divinity and salvation, and those views have evolved and changed. What are the views I had 20 years ago, now I disagree with them. But there's one thing that has not changed, and that is the testimony about Jesus Christ that he is the only name under heaven by which man can be saved. About the necessity of the authority from God to build up his kingdom. The reality of the Book of Mormon. The power of prayer and personal revelation. These are the things that don't change in the church even if the application of policy can vary from time to time. Interpretations and speculations also have their own cultural and historical phenomenons. But that is exactly why there is a church in place, to keep these phenomena from taking over the church itself.
So you are saying that the curse of Cain was not taught as doctrine? If it wasn't doctrine, why was it necessary for a revelation from God to SWK (see declaration #2) to allow all worthy members the opportunities to obtain saving ordinances in the temple. This "doctrine" continued over 120 years. To call it a random opinion from a few leaders of the church is embarrassing.
@jaredite when you say, “they didn’t teach it as doctrine, they were only saying their opinions”, this mode of thinking creates several problems: 1. It fails to honor the test of a prophet as outlined in the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say, “If the prophet issues a teaching but it isn’t approved by his peers, then feel free to disregard.” Rather, it says, “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak… that same prophet shall die.” 2. It gives the prophet a license to teach absolutely anything without repercussion. What if today’s prophet were to say that Jesus never had a resurrection? That would be heresy. But by your logic, he would merely be asserting his opinion. Someone can’t just come up with some wild idea about God with serious ramifications and start teaching it with reckless abandon, let alone a prophet who should fear the Lord above all else! 3. When a prophet speaks his opinion in an authoritative setting, he should qualify it as such. In these examples, we have the exact opposite situation given that Brigham said all of his sermons could be considered Scripture. A prophet who recklessly teaches his own wild opinions without qualifying them (especially when they are in direct opposition to Scripture) is a massive red flag when employing the fruit inspection test that Jesus talks about, and it certainly fails to meet the New Testament standard for church leaders as outline in Timothy, Titus, and Peter.
Thank you for standing for the True Biblical Christ! HE is Everything !! 🙏 ✝️🕊️❤️🔥l so appreciate your many excellent videos. I am former Mormon. I have family members think l am crazy apostate black sheep. They are however, very polite about their distancing and shunning.😂 They just keep me far away, and won't listen to anything l have to say. 😂 I oray l my stay soft in my heart. lt is difficult. ✝️🙏❤️🔥 Blessings to you and yours, in Jesus most Holy name.
I could have saved myself 40+ years of my life....50..... if I had known about The Rock in a Hat AND MONEYDIGGING. I would have laughed and been GONE!!
The Book of Mormon says that the atonement of Jesus Christ is, "..infinite and eternal..". This, to me at least, should end all the confusion because, if it's not, then why believe in the Resurrected Christ, the infinite and eternal God?
The great thing is that this is taught in the Bible, so you can accept the true teachings of the Bible without having to bind yourself to religious leaders whose false teachings deviate from God’s word. As a Latter-Day Saint, you subject yourself to these false teachers.
@BNichols021 Antonio, here. You're mistaken about my belief. I'm not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, I know that Joseph Smith Junior is/was a true Prophet of God. That fact doesn't take anything away from my belief in the truth of the Bible's texts. I accept the word of God wherever it is written in the ancient texts. The reality of the atonement of Christ Jesus is in its eternal and infinite nature. That's why I commented on the posting. Blessings 🙌
.....and we were always brow beaten into believing in any doctrine the Church leaders spewed out. "Doubting", we were told, is the first step toward apostacy. And of course, there has always been the fearsome consequences if we didn't go along. I look back on my life in the Church and seethe with anger how I was lied to and made to feel guilt and remorse for my feelings at the time, and observe how the Church leaders have now denounced those commands, and so many others. What's next?
I grew up in the church. I’m 27 and just recently left. Recently endowed too and they definitely show Archangel Michael/Adam as one being and he assisted in the creation of the world with Jesus under Elohim’s direction. I remember learning about the stone in the hat, and my dad taught me that black people are black because Cane was cursed with black skin after killing Able. So…
We must always use proper discernment. To ask of God James 1:5. To not be content with things which require assumptions. To seek what the reasoning behind it was, etc. Without thinking in the Spirit, we are not very pleasing to God.
I remember as a kid doing "baptism for the dead" now I'm 43, and I rejoined the church in 2005 not knowing what I was getting myself into. Every church service was about joseph smith, no talk of Jesus at all, I stayed in America for 15 years and nobody ever approached me with Jesus and i never knew or heard the work he did on the cross for my sins. So hearing ppl talk about lds i had to do my own digging, and in one of the Sunday classes i was asked how many gods were there and i said 1 to my surprise he said i was wrong he said there's 3 Gods and that right there woke me up. I kept going to lds but not as enthusiastic as before. And finally one of my colleagues ask me what's wrong and i told them straight up i don't believe your church is true. So he brings the bishop the following week and we talked and i told him the same thing and they just got up quietly and left. I am so thankful for the Word of God for His Word is the truth. All my family is lds except for my dad he committed suicide when i was really young so i don't know, but I'm ready to share with my immediate family the truth, but the family that adopted us are keeping my 7 sisters away from me which i haven't seen them in 30+ years.
Y'al shuld read yer Bok de Marmon more. Right there in Alma 11:28 & 29. Zeezrom asketh, Is thar more than 1 God? Amulek sayth, hell No. (Read betwixt the woards) Perversere to verse 38 and it sayth Son of God is the very Eternal Farthur. Then verse 44, Christ the Son, God the Father and the Holy Spirt "is one Eternal God". That thar be a better explainin' of thee Trinity than anywhar in the Bible and most Creeds. Whoever composed Alma (lst century BC) believed in the Trinity. No mention of the Trinity in Romon empire Christianity before the 3rd century after Christ. BTW Jesus was Jewish. Born a Jew, lived a Jew, taught Jewishism, died a Jew under a sign that mocked him being King of the Jews. not King of the Christians. All of the writers of the entire New Testament were Jews, exceptin' maybe Luke who was high-flutin' Hellionised Jew doctor. Jews don't believe in the Trinity.
AND THEN shall they know their Redeemer, who is JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God; AND THEN shall they be gathered in from the four quarters of the earth unto their own lands, from whence they have been dispersed; yea, as the Lord liveth so shall it be. Amen.
Mormonism is straight up blasphemous. Not just these teachings, but the teachings that the Mormon church currently teach, that we can be "gods" and be like God, which is the very first lie and temptation in the Bible from the devil! Jesus also clearly stated many times that he is God, yet they deny it. It is so sad.
The curse of Cain doctrine did not originate with the latter Day saints. In fact Joseph Smith disagreed with such ideas. Curse of King doctrine came from the Protestants. Latter-Day saints missionaries brought it with them from the deep south. And because Latter-Day saints believe in the Bible, some of them believed this kind of interpretation what the southern baptist had concerning the black people by reading the Bible. There has always been dissension in this View about the priesthood and the blacks in the church. On Joseph Smith himself even said apart black priests in the church in the early years of the church. This was a similar contention that what Peter and Paul had concerning the non-jewish members of the early Christian Church as well. Unfortunately this contention lasted much longer than it should have. But thank God it was settled once and for all.
The difference here is that Southern Baptists and other Protestants can point to their own Scriptures and say, “Ah, this teaching is not aligned with the Bible. I am not bound by those who say otherwise and must reject these false teachings.” Whereas in the LDS church you have the black skin rhetoric used in LDS scriptures and prophets/apostles who are affirming the teaching. Brigham even said he never preached a sermon that couldn’t be considered Scripture. The problem here is that you have bound yourselves to prophets who fail the test of New Testament leadership. As for your comparison to Peter… Peter distanced himself from the Gentiles “because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.” While this is clearly sinful, it isn’t in the same category as blatantly authoritatively teaching that one race can’t inherit salvation, something which flies in the face of what the Scripture clearly teaches. Those leaders who taught this must be rejected entirely as legitimate prophets and apostles.
@@BNichols021in the Bible the first high priest really was Moses in Moses was black all the 12 tribes of Israel are black people, Adam the first man was black he was made in the image of God Jesus tells you he was black when John saw God in Revelation chapter 1 verses 14 and 15 he was black so how is Cain going to be cursed with dark skin when his mom and dad was already black all the priests in the Bible were black men every last one of them God's Church true church was a nation of black people that's Bible 101
Joseph Smith played both sides of the issue. Your funny speculations about Southerners is so wrong. B. Young was a hi up Freemason, and Freemasonry bylaws stated in the Freemasons Indiana Monitor, States that Blacks cannot be a Freemason. The British Monarch gave some Black lodge charters to use Blacks in their Communist & NWO schemes. :.
Um... it is in The Book of Mormon.. missionaries didn't write that. YES.. It was protestant doctrine which is another proof The Book of Mormon is FALSE. It is nothing but a fictional book presented as fact to support 19th century protestant teaching..
@@jameswines6589😂😂😂 You are very mistaken. Moses and Aaron were brothers and it specifically states Aaron was married to a black woman. What would be the reason to point that out if Moses was black. The hair is like that of wool is referring to the color white not the texture.
i am personally a believer in mormon fundamentalism & i truly appreciate that you provide each source of your claims/quotes from previous prophets instead of being disingenuous like others.
2:58 so if Young taught false doctrine then doesn't that many he was a false prophet and that the current SLC Mormons do not have to fullest of the gospel. They cannot discredit President Young without discrediting their own religion
Joseph may have used a seer stone also, and that has very little effect on me as it doesn't matter to me how it was translated since I have a testimony that it is true, and in addition to this, tons of evidence have come out recently to show that it is true! See videos by Rod Mildrum! Look I have studied theology and Mormon doctrine for more than 60 years, and it is obvious to me that you haven't studied much at all! Why don't you hold Peter accountable for changing his doctrine about the gentiles having to be circumcized before baptism to later they don't?!? I'll tell you why, and it's because you don't understand this one thing, and that is any prophet can say things wrong if he is not receiving a direct revelation from God, and Brigham Young was notorious for that, but just like Peter and Nathan, he was a true prophet of God, and if you read the entire amazing book entitled;"The Discourses of Brigham Young," and studied it and other teachings of the apostles and prophets, you could know it also, but if your purpose is just to find out enough to attack when you you don't understand what you are talking about, instead of really seeking, you will never find!!! Continued...
I would disagree that Peter changed his doctrine about having Gentiles circumcised prior to baptism.... He realized in Acts 10 (by revelation) that the Mosaic Law was passing away/being fulfilled - in the wake of the New Covenant. Is that what you mean? What text are you referring to? And I'd disagree - I don't think a genuine prophet can persistently teach false things. To be a prophet is to speak on behalf of the Lord. If what you say is false, you are-by definition-a false prophet.
I know this is probably difficult, but I encourage you stop basing your faith on subjective feelings and testimonies. Faith in anything should only be based on strong objective evidence.
@@walterhelm8186 Subjective feelings?!? I have studied theology for more than 60 years, and those opinions of mine are made based on facts and not subjective feelings!
@@GLM Prophets can be wrong if they are not speaking by inspiration from God, just as Nathan was wrong when he told David that he could build the temple!
1) I am a Happy Former Mormon, or FoMo as some call it. I left when I was 19 in the early 1970s in large part because of the "curse of Cain" and the racism (and misogyny) of the church. Women _still_ aren't allowed to hold the priesthood and ascend to the high church administration. (Thank goodness the Prophet got a message from God that it was now okay to allow people of darker skin into the priesthood, just in time for that big push into Brazil! --- I never understood why ANY people of African descent joined the racist church.) 2) It _REALLY_ flattened me when I found out about that teaching in missionary school that it was _perfectly acceptable to "lie for the lord"!!!_ I was completely disillusioned. 3) Another LDSer absolutely _insisted_ to me that she was a direct descendant of Yeshu' himself and that the church's genealogy records proved it! I warned her not to tell the bishop, but she was ecstatic about her discovery. I left before I found out if she had any fallout. 4) Does the church still insist on showing Yeshu' as a blue-eyed, blonde-haired Swedish male model? 5) I was sad to learn that good old Angel Moroni has been booted off the temple spires and the church logo in favor of just another same-old-same-old depiction of Yeshu' The church has dumped one of things that made it a unique stand-out from the crowd. Moroni must feel betrayed!
Oh, yes, regarding caffeine - - - The church changed it's teachings about imbibing caffeine-laden foods because Willard Romney was seen drinking tea? That's like Catholics buying blessings and dispensations from their church. The hypocrisy! I know LDSers who struggled their whole lives with avoiding tea and coffee especially in social situations. I _still_ do not drink coffee even though I left the church decades ago. >_
President Brigham Young expressed concern that the Latter-day Saints would “have so much confidence in their leaders” that they would “settle down in a state of blind self-security,” abandoning the responsibility to obtain their own revelation: “Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not” (Journal of Discourses, 9:150).
On family search, it shows that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. I know people not in the LDS faith who have done genealogy and found that it puts their ancestry back through that Jesus & Mary line? 🤷🏼♀️
Some leave because God told them to or could it be the adversary that did? I do know we live in a wicked world & we need to find out for ourselves if it comes from God or the adversary. We can’t rely on RU-vid videos but we can rely on God for the truth.
yes, thats tru, those are signs of false prophets. but if you apply those same principles to the prophets in the bible, they too won't pass the test. the inconsistencies and contradictions of the bible are proof that all abrahamic religions can't be true. that's why i became a buddhist
that’s what a book from Jewish Rabbis teach about Adam and Eve the book name is Tanah, Talmud, they have other books where the Lds church uses. The good things we have messianic Jews that believe in Jesus Christ thru Nicodemus.
Yeah ,Yeah,Yeah another person stuck in s Rut. Apparently your one of those people who take everything and turn things around to suit your Deap Speculations of questions that people said when they say could. Mary at the Tomb had been Jesus's wife? We'll never know because the Scriputres don't say. So you shouldn't take everything you hear ad Gospel Fact.
Enjoyed the video, but alas, another Christian asserting that the beliefs of other Christians has never set well with me. As I can only speak for myself, I say, who am I to decide who is in tune with and adheres to Christ's true teachings? As for me, I see good in every Christian sect I've ever been associated with, good people, who are doing their best to love the Lord and showing it by how they live their lives with kindness and compassion to those around them.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints cannot escape this one fact, and whether you believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet or not, or that he received this revelation or not, you will be amazed at what I am about to tell you. The very first words that were reported to have been received from the Lord, in this dispensation of time, was recorded in July of 1828, and can be found in the Church’s first attempt to publish the Doctrine and Covenants, in a book with the title of: A Book of Commandments, of 1833. Those words can be found in chapter II of that Book, where the Lord is reported to have told Joseph Smith that His (the Lord’s words) never “vary from that which He hath said”. The Lord is then said to have explained his purposes for the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon. This revelation is written in response to Joseph Smith and Martin Harris losing the first 116 pages they translated from the Book of Mormon. Joseph was told not to re-translate the part they had lost, because of a “Cunning Plan” Satan had, to influence those that then had the 116 pages, to “alter” the words so that they would read “contrary” to how they were meant to be understood. That “Cunning Plan” is meant to destroy the work of the Lord, in not only the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon, but also in destroying its true purpose. Joseph was told to repent of his bad behavior and he would be allowed to continue on with the translation, with the only one gift he was ever to be given. He was told to NOT pretend to any other gifts, for he would not be given any other gift. (period!) Joseph Smith supposedly repented, and was allowed to finish the work of translating the rest of the Book of Mormon, which was later published in 1830. Joseph read what he translated, and imagined it was all about him, and began to return to his past bad behavior, and fell for that “Cunning Plan” by altering the words he said the Lord revealed to him in his first revelations. He contradicts what the Lord had told him, about his gift, and the purposes of the Book of Mormon. These and many other contradictions can be found in the records, scriptures, and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Especially, in the practices of “Dead Works” done in the temples that contradict what the Holy Ghost revealed to Mormon, in the Book of Mormon, of the Lord’s words, concerning the baptism of “little children”, and those that “die without a knowledge of the gospel”. The Lord has warned those that put their trust in “Dead Works”! Which “Dead Works” mock the Lord’s mercy of his atoning sacrifices for “little children” and “those that die without a knowledge of the gospel”, and which also denies the power of his Holy Spirit! Please take care that you do not contradict what the Lord has already told us, and that you do not follow that “Cunning Plan”. It is written, in the Book of Mormon, that the Lord will send his servant to tell his brethren these things, but they will not believe him. He says they will mar him, but they will not hurt him. That servant was not Joseph Smith, because they not only hurt him, they killed him! But the Lord said that He (the Lord) will heal his servant, for He will show unto them (those that do not believe), that His (the Lord’s) wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil!
He killed himself by practising polygamy. He directed to burn and destroy printing shop and printing press that exposed him and others. Members and public were angry Facts don't lie!
Everything GA's say is either taken out of context or a twisted lie. Example Pesident|Prophet Spencer Kimball didn't say B. Young's Adam God was false doctrine. Instead he said he only denounces the Adam God doctrine. But, B. Young stated in General Conference that everything he says is official doctrine & scripture. :.
Geesh. So much bickering in some of the comments. And, by the way, there are illogical unreachably high expectations placed on mortals. Every human being is fallible.
For what it's worth - Joseph Fielding Smith seemed to think that "The Seer Stone" and the Urim and Thummim were different (though sometimes Urim & Thummim were also called seer stones): “While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a [seer] stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22-24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Doctrines of Salvation,” Vol. 3, 225-26). He believed that Smith had BOTH the Urim & Thummim AND the Seer Stone, but only used the Urim & Thummim for translation.
Although Adam who was cast out of the Garden of Eden is clearly not God the Father it’s not a stretch to think that one of his names is Adam. Ephesians 3:14,15 Genesis 5:2.
It's a bit of a stretch to say one of God's names could have been Adam, since Adam literally means "man", unless one wants to claim God was man, which is pretty heretical from a Christian view.
@@gusolsthoorn1002 Why is it a stretch to say that God was a man? Is not man created in the image of God? Was Jesus Christ not a man? Are Father and Son not words associated with men? Is it not the destiny of men to become glorified men? 2 Corinthians 3:18, 1 John 3:2, Revelation 3:21.
@user-qp8ln2yt8r No, in 1 Corinthians the first Adam refers to the literal first man created by God, while the second "Adam" is a type of the first man. Adam was never a name for Christ although in Mormon theology who knows.
@@gusolsthoorn1002 1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. It’s plain that the second Adam and second man in these verses is Christ. If you can’t see that how will you ever have any understanding of the Gospel and man’s destiny?
As a member of the Church, I had heard both explanations of how J.S. translated the BOM: with a seer stone and by looking at the plates; even by looking at the plates, but with a curtain drawn between him and the scribe, where he spoke the words out loud and the scribe wrote them down to form the manuscript. I don’t believe any of it now. The BOM was invented by J.S. and is not a historical record of the native Americans. But neither do I believe that when Evangelicals in the 80s and 90s (and till today, really) would angrily bash Mormons for their teachings were being sincere, compassionate followers of Christ. I perceived them, and still perceive them as angry bashers of people outside their doctrinal and political camps, including Mormons and others. Their angry bashing never made me warm up to them.
@@BNichols021 Most modern Christians eat pork and shellfish, many has also moved the sabbath to sunday instead of saturday. Old purity laws, capital punishment for certain unholy acts, not wearing garments of mixed fabrics. I could go on and on. But I wont. :)
Guess they don't read the KJV bible. Which I know they read the book of Mormon most which claims to be another testiment of Jesus Christ. The last verse in Revelation says not to add or take away from this book.
so you get to write "false preacher" without any evidence? Can we make up stuff about you without any evidence also? Or do you have this one=sided thing called hypocrisy as your standard?
Another major teaching that was changed is who are the descendants of the Lamanites. Older editions of the Book of Mormon have in the introductory matter the statement that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the Native Americans. The current edition states the Lamanites are among the ancestors of the Native Americans.
This is a great video to pair with the last one! If the early teachings were taught by prophets but modern LDS people call it false doctrine then we can see that modern LDS people don’t see the earlier prophets aren’t really prophets.
The apologetic is that the living prophet has priority over past prophets. Also, they will say that sometimes the prophet speaks as a man and not as a prophet. This was actually taught by Joseph Smith, Jr. Unfortunately, you can never really know when he speaks as a man vs. as a prophet, and when he dies, his teachings become fair game to be completely disavowed.
No, what we see is the vast majority of Mormons do not care about what the past prophets "may" or may not have taught, and believe every cunning word play that the LDS church has learned to master craft and speak. They call past doctrines "theories" and they are at a point to where it no longer matters to them what past prophets may have taught, because they sugar coat with cunning words and explanation in their gospel topics they hand out. It's nothing more than corporate PR damage control.
Growing up in the church, I learned about the Urim and Thummim. Young mormons today have never heard those words. So many things have changed and they will claim "that was never taught." It's infuriating!
Uh, no. NO. The church has never once claimed that any teaching about the Urim and Thummim never occurred. It is STILL doctrinally sound. Do you know why? Because it's the TRUTH! Take a church history class at a church owned university. You might find a few nuggets there which are official, but which you still nevertheless choose to DENY. It works in a similar fashion in a court of law. This is how guilty people often go free, and how innocent people like Trump get convicted. It's how THE WORLD operates - not how God operates.
You can blame the leaders of the church for misleading members. When I grew up in the 90s I totally believed in plates on the table and joseph smith running his fingers across them. Total lies.
i was taught about the ur and thummim in sunday school in the early 2010s, but my teacher said they were a pair of stones that were like glasses, never explained how they were used in the translation or anything, i was still under the impression it was a “normal” translation process until my shelf broke in 2020
Seer stones. Every heard of those ... ? That's what the Urimm and Thummim are. Tools of trade of prophets, seers, and revelators, as directed by God himself - the Alpha & Omega, the Great I AM - All the current shit you hear about the church is the SAME OLD SHIT as aways since decades past, but magnified by a factor of 10 + Trust me - this is surely NOTHING new. We're heard it all a jillion times.
Questions that come to mind while watching this video: 1. If things that were clearly taught by the prophet at General Conference cannot be considered authoritative and binding, then how can we trust anything said by today’s LDS prophets and apostles? 2. Though many will claim that these teachings were never “official” doctrine, it’s hard to imagine that anyone who loves the Lord could teach such wild speculations in any sort of official capacity. 3. If Latter-Day Saints are selective about which teachings they believe from their own prophets, then how can they expect others to take their prophets seriously? 4. If present-day prophets overrule past prophets, then how does the Latter-Day Saint know that today’s “truths” won’t be overruled by tomorrow’s prophet?
Just as a past prophet in the Bible is overuled by the next current prophet in the Bible e.g Adam is overrule by Abraham and then Abraham is overuled by Moses etc.
@@GLM So the law of Moses is not done away with after Jesus Christ's Atonement and Resurrection? Or do we all need get in line to board the ark because the prophet Noah is alive and expecting a flood? Or was God wrong when he told Abraham he would be a father of many nations? Or do we all need to be obedient so the Laihona will point in the right direction? Or do we all need to go on mass to gather to Utah? Or do we all need to still be reading the Bible in Latin? Or was Martin Luther The German Lawyer Monk wrong when he nailed his 95-Point Theses to the church doors in Wittenberg; if so we all should still be Roman Catholic? Or was Henry VIII wrong to break with the Roman Catholic church? Or was God wrong when he kicked out Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden?
The belief in blood atonement is interesting, as it pairs well with the "blood oath" that was required by new members of the freemasonry movement. So much of Mormonism was derived from pagan masonic practices.
I was born and raised LDS, but left last year after a couple of years deconstructing Mormonism. At the same time, Jesus led me to a wonderful Bible believing church where I have accepted Jesus! I have appreciated your videos along my journey. You are spot on about all of these former LDS teachings. Another doctrine that is changing is who in the godhead is worshiped. I was taught in Institute in the late 1990's that because LDS considered itself monotheistic only Heavenly Father was worshiped, but love and adoration were given to Jesus (Bruce R. McConkie taught this), but now there are statements from the church leaders (Elder Cook) and on the LDS website that Jesus is worshiped. Since Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are three individual people in Mormon theology worshiping more than one person in the Godhead is problematic because it is polytheism.
Wow - Praise God! Very encouraging. Yeah, we originally were going to do "10 things the LDS Church No Longer Teaches" - but it got too long ha. I'll probably do a "5 more things the LDS Church No Longer Teaches" eventually, and cover some of the things I cut.
Praise God that he lead you into all truths! Thank you for sharing your experience. I was involved in Mormonism from the early 1980's ~ 2000's and then fell away for a long time, but eventually opened the Bible and then was lead to a wonderful Christian church that teaches / preaches from the Bible alone, and found the true Jesus, and was saved. I just pray that more will have their eyes opened before it is too late.
I have a similar story. I was raised and at times throughout my life I was very devout in my faith as a LDS member and priesthood holder, but it all starting crumbling after a new missionary showed me the king follett discourse, I struggled with this for a couple of years and ultimately accepted it and explained it away and all was good but then I dug even deeper into the doctrine of the church became more active in church and responsibility around the ward until one day I had the idea of “the second anointing “ brought to my attention by a fellow member. This was yet another doctrine that I had to unpack and explain away to myself. Then I found the doctrine of blood atonement, and Jesus being a polygamist and I finally decided I needed to re read the Bible for myself but not through the eyes or influence of the church. I bought a new Bible off the internet and read the entire New Testament in two weeks and Jesus revealed himself to me, and allowed the scales to fall off my eyes and see the Lds church for what it was and now I have been baptized and joined a Bible believing Jesus preaching church where I serve in the worship team and have had a true born again experience, and met the true Jesus the savior of our world and the one true God, who came to this world completely God and completely man and died for our sins, so that we can have eternal life to glorify and worship him. And it is my personal call to spread this message to the world and help to get my family and anyone else I can away from this and other false religions who pervert the gospel and pose as ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing trying to lead souls to hell. Anyone on the fence about the lds church or the jehova witness church or the Roman Catholic Church, or anyone who doubts there is a God and wants to talk about who Jesus is, and how he will come to where you are and meet you, message me. I promise the gospel and good news that Jesus himself commissioned us to spread in the New Testament is real, and his grace is free to all, not by anything you can do, or because of anything you have done to earn or deserve it, but free to any who seeks to have a relationship with him and call and believe upon his name. The grace of Jesus Christ our lord is enough to save you. I am happy to converse with anyone who wants to know more about how.
@@jssparkman04 Thank you for such a powerful testimony! I can identify with many things you said and praise God every time someone has their eyes opened and they find the real Jesus Christ of the Bible.
Doesn't it bother them at all that they have NO source material? No actual Book of Mormon, and NO copies? There is NO source document of the witnesses. The godly thing to conclude is that they are not of God.
You can say the same thing about the gospels in the Bible. There are no original manuscripts for those. And all evidence points to the fact that they were all written, at a minimum, decades after the fact. There are a ton of other issues with the Gospels that bring their authenticity into question but you can easily look those up elsewhere. My point is, you are correct, the Mormon canon of scriptures are very hard to take seriously because of lack of primary sources. The same goes for the Bible.
@@squeakhawk01 That's not exactly true. At some point there was a source, which was copied over and over again with great care. In many instances, the people could contest the facts with actual witnesses. While it is true that we may no longer have or know the sources, most of the time they did. For instance, Noah was still alive when Abraham was born. And Noah knew many people who knew Adam. The time span between Joseph (son of Israel) and Miriam (Moses' sister) was less than a lifetime. Moses got God's "stamp of approval" and everyone could witness this. With Joseph Smith, we don't have anything like this at all. In fact, we have evidence of his shenanigans and his rejection of Christianity and their God.
@@ts-900 Sure. But those original documents were likely constructed from oral traditions. We are talking at least 2 to 3 generations of oral traditions before they were written down (not to mention that Matthew and Luke copy huge chunks of Mark). And since we are talking about Mormonism, consider all of the "miraculous" stories and legends that became established in the Mormon faith within the first and second generations of the LDS church. And that is WITH journals and contemporary documentation. In fact, the history of Mormonism is itself a giant case study on how the mythology and legends of the early Christian church could have developed, all without actual supernatural events.
@@squeakhawk01 That's not exactly true, either. We have words and phrases in those books which push back the time that they were written. First-hand witnesses would have been alive and there would have been evidences of the stories. First instance, some of the saints who rose again, or their relatives, could attest to being made alive in Christ. I cannot consider the "miraculous" stories and legends (of Mormonism) because I don't think I've heard of very many, if any. I have noticed that all such stories are devoid of Christ, or faith in God. So are they miraculous? I would say not. As far as I can tell, Mormonism is independent of Christianity and sees Christianity as corrupt. And yet it claims Christianity as its foundation.
@@squeakhawk01 Those who are spiritually blind will always believe the Bible was somehow corrupted, because the Mormon church told them so in the beginning (by Joseph Smith Jr himself) and those who simply do not believe in God today. 1 Cor 2:14 “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness until him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
As a former member of the LDS Church, I've heard the idea that Jesus was married openly talked about from the point I joined in 1979 and up until I left in 2016. I heard it was a sin to marry outside of your race through the early 80s. As a Mormon, I was told the translation method of Joseph's Book of Mormon is that he used the plates and Urim and Thummim in all cases through the early 80s. Joseph's own seer stone in a hat idea came creeping in slowly until it evolved into the narrative that he didn't need the plates to translate the Book of Mormon at all.
The seer stone wasn’t an idea that came creeping in. That was a historical fact that the church was actively hiding until they realized they could no longer suppress that information.
Joseph Fielding Smith said the brown seer stone in a hat story is false , the official Church History Institute manual says it is sketchy. You left the church over hearsay and false rumors. You should have done your own research instead of believing written gossip.
JOSEPH ' S BOOK OF MORMON IS SATANIC, DECEIVING, FULL OF LIES, ETC. . SHAME ON HIM, JOSEPH?!? WHERE IS HE RIGHT NOW ? MORMONS , PLEASE CULTIVATE YOURSELVES . START READING " HOLY BIBLE "❤
The Book of Mormon is not historically accurate the Prophets are wolfs in sheep’s clothing with predatory practices people should not be adding in their baptism that they have to believe in Joseph smith being a prophet why is that a requirement for being baptized and why would they hold a member accountable if they realize is false and leaving the church once they decide is false baptism is for everyone again why punish one of your members that bring someone to be baptized and decides to change to a different church that is just despicable Russell Nelson has been caught telling lies often enough Mormon in Hebrew means more good no book in the Bible describes it’s self better than the other the Book of Mormon projects red flags even on its own Cover Tithing is a scam God does not want money he wants you to know him how me he loves you and wants your love remember what Jesus said about taxes Mormons are poor children being deceived sorry but wow broh you see a church that tells you to Tithe just run from it
There were many competing sects up until about the third century AD that had wildly different ideas about the nature of God and Christ. That "simplicity" you speak of is the result of generations of church fathers establishing an orthodox narrative and then winnowing down the canon of scriptures until they had selected the books that backed their narrative. My point is, Christianity is a very messy religion.
@@shamrockdirtwork7945 You say that but how do you know the nature and character of your god? Through the writings of men. Everything you think you know about God and Jesus has been filtered down to you through men. If you had not been raised in an environment where these doctrines were preached to you BY MEN (and women) then the Judeo-Christian god would simply be another bit of mythology like Zeus or Thor.
@@squeakhawk01 Then you do not know the true history or facts. When you seek the reasoning of man and trust that reasoning over trusting the word of God, you set yourself up for believing in more and more man made (Satan lead) doctrines that "make sense" because Satan is the most cunning, manipulative being ever created. If Satan could use his cunning to convince 1/3rd of the angels in heaven to join him, how hard do you honestly believe it would be for him to convince the masses to believe and follow a false gospel? You can do a RU-vid search for: Vodie Baucham, is the bible corrupt? He goes into some wonderful detail explaining the conspiracy theories needed in order for that to have actually happened.
@shamrockdirtwork7945 - well said. The Bible is like the yellow brick road in the wizard of oz. Is was when they got off the yellow brick road that bad things happened to Dorothy and her friends. If people would just open their Bible and read it as is, they wouldn’t be led astray by all kinds of teachings that sound appealing to itching ears.
I've never heard of you or heard you speak and just wanted to say that you very clearly explain all of the teaching very well. Not saying this to lift your pride but you are a very good teacher.
None of these are canonical doctrine of the LDS church. The list for most other churches would be pages long and would require a series to address. Human error and errors of translation are throughout the Bible. OT states several times that God had to repent. Discrepancies with the death of Judas, etc.
I think the biggest problem is the claim to having "modern prophets." If a prophet can authoritatively teach something later rejected as a gross falsehood...how can I have any confidence that the prophet today is correct? What use is a prophet if prophetic teaching is so unreliable?
The top hat and seer stone were not taught for decades in church curriculum. It is only in the last 10 years that the church web site admits that was the prime method for the translation from the plates. I have manuals for different auxiliary groups in the church. I collect one that cover decades. No mention was made of a top hat until recently. There is a new video with the current President where he discusses the top hat and seer stone.
Interestingly, the hat and stone history used to be referred to as anti-Mormon propaganda when I was active LDS in 70s-80s. Now this info is on the official LDS website under the Gospel Topic Essays as official church history. Hmmm....come to think of it, most if not all the topics in this collection of essays were considered anti-Mormon just a few years ago.
@@karenl7791 Many LDS members were excommunicated for exposing a lot of the things which were considered anti-Mormon but are now acknowledged by the LDS church and covered (apologetically) in the Gospel Topics Essays. That said, their are still a lot of Mormons who still think these thins are anti-Mormon propaganda.
@@karenl7791 Yes it was referred to as anti-mormon propaganda. And when those essays were published they were supposed to stop people leaving the church. However it has backfired. There were members who had no idea of some topics for the essays. It was shocking to members. The essays were a response to the Swedish Rescue.
i disagree. there has been more information found...such as joseph smith papers that sheds light as to how the translation was done. at first this bothered me because i wasnt aware of this. but it really does not matter how but that it happened. what i imagined was done a different way. we were not ready to hear about exactly how because it would have been misconstrued.
Using a top hat is better than using a chamber pot. You are actually right, it really does not matter how but that it happened. I’ve heared those exact words when others where arguing about the translation.
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for how you put this info. Together. I was a convert to LDS church and have been lds for 44 years, I have been inactive for 10 years. Reason being..Is mostly because of all the flip flopping, but now I have been studying the bible..I see a lot of discrepancies. It's been unsettling.
@@scottvance74…the majority of Christians already know this. So why are they ok with it? Because the doctrine/teaching is consistent with the rest of what is taught. There’s no change in the principles, values or teachings.
@@scottvance74 1 Cor 2:14 “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness until him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” -- Until you are truly born again, you cannot understand the meaning of Scripture, for it is Spiritually discerned.
@@BGCflyer By this standard (allowing for later texts if they are consistent with the rest of what is taught), mainstream christians should embrace the Book of Mormon. It's largely consistent with Biblical teachings and KJV english. But of course most Christians reject the Book of Mormon. From the outside, this looks very much like a dual standard or special pleading.
@@scottvance74 ...The Book of Mormon is not accepted because there are no manuscripts to show it was authentically written by the people/prophets who claim to be the authors. Show us even a part of a manuscript from Moroni, or Nephi. Then you might get Christians to look at the Book of Mormon as an authentic and historic writing. Just to say, well you have to pray about it, doesn't cut it for authentic and historic writings. The books of the New Testament were not all decided on after the Nicene Council as falsely eluded to in Dan Brown's book the Divinci Code. It was a processed that took several centuries. The objective was to provide true authentic writings of God which show the Messianic fulfillment of the Tanahk (Old Testament). The 66 books in the current Bible today does just that. Any so called books that were even considered later, like the gospel of mary, went through the same test that the other books did. For example, were there manuscripts disseminated to all of the churches? If so, can we actually see these ancient manuscripts and test them to see that they are authentic. Secondly, what is taught in the writing needs to be consistent with the original "gospels" of Matt, Mark, Luke John and the other writings of Peter, John, James and Paul. If the teachings of the writings in questions are even slightly different or there were no other manuscripts or if there are other clues that the acclaimed written wasn't written by the person the book says its' written by, then it is not included in the canon of the Bible. It's a very strict criterion but understandably, it should be as we are talking about the word of God. Wes Huff does a great job at explaining the process of how the Bible was put together and why so many other so called gospels were not included. See www.wesleyhuff.com
Brigham Young taught the Adam God theory but it was never accepted by the Church and was not recorded as scripture. After his death in 1877 the teaching was largely rejected as conjecture and faded away. The Idea that Jesus was married as promulgated as another theory but never accepted as doctrine by the Church and was not recorded in scripture. The Idea that Jesus was married and had children is not a unique view. There are many other people (non-LDS) who believe that to this very day. Blood atonement was also not accepted by the Church as a whole and not recorded as scripture either. Neither was the curse of Cain teaching a teaching that was similarly taught among various mainstream Christian sects as well. It was how the Church interpreted the scriptures especially those found in the Pearl of Great Price. There is no recorded scripture about what was then called "the Negro doctrine." The Book of Mormon Translation and understanding of that translation has evolved with further light and knowledge especially in receiving the massive document trove now found in the Joseph Smith Papers and in other fascinating documents more recently received from the Community of Christ.
Reminder that in the LDS book called Pearl of Great Price, which is considered scripture, we have the Book of Abraham, chapter 1 verse 26. Regarding the lds website claim that they denounce all claims that any race has been cursed, see verse 26. For extra credit maybe start a couple verses before that. There is a bold statement in lds scripture that the Caananites and Egyptians were dark skinned, were among that “race”, and were *cursed. For the LDS church to make the claim that no race has been cursed, they have to refute their own scripture. --- Reminder that the book of Abraham came from Joseph apparently being caught up into a vision after coming in contact with Egyptian relics (so the story goes now since they have disposed of the prior explanation that the book came from translating Egyptian scrolls). Why the Hebrew God of the Old Testament would allow or give any truthful vision to come from being in contact with idolatrous relics… of the same people that enslaved hebrews during the time of Moses… is beyond me.. Our God is a jealous God, and rightfully so. The hebrews dwindled in the desert for 40 years to wring the idolatry out of them. The same hebrews that wanted to go back to Egypt because they didn’t prefer the man’s that came from heaven in comparison to the fish they had in Egypt. Every plague of God thru Moses was a direct attack on the Egyptian Gods and what they claimed to have power over. But Joseph smith touches Egyptian medallions from a traveling salesman in the United States and all of a sudden goes into a vision to write holy scripture? These medallions and papyrus have idolatrous gods all over them, and Joseph states they are actually the Jehovah God of the Hebrews? Hold up… wait a minute… something ain’t right.. 🤔
@@stanleyhall8951No because it's nothing but a false Pagan religion started by a crazy nut who calls himself a prophet ain't never prophesied about nothing biblically
You said in a comment down below "I DO believe," you did not say that you DO know. Are you going to change your statement now to that you know? So, unless you and your interpretations are without flaw and continue your somewhat shallow and semi-informed criticisms, their must be room for a little error in your assessments - if a little, then their could be a lot. You sound a tad like Saul who became Paul. I hope you stop attacking certain followers of Jesus who are led by flawed leaders , just like ALL the other traditional Christians have very flawed leaders also. It all comes down to faith. That includes atheism too. It just means that when you take the leap of faith into the fog, will you step over a small crack in the ground, or plummet off the edge into the abyss. I have found that all directions of faith can be found very wanting - that includes atheism, statism, secular humanism, all forms of Chrisianity, etc. You know that the Catholic church recognizes internally 150 years or so of currupt popes. Many of your Christian sects offten accept Catholic baptisms, but they NEVER accept LDS baptisms. That's OK because they only accept their own also. It's also interesting that the idea of the Trinity was voted on at the councel of Nicaea to unify the factions. How do you kow they were correct. Those who voted against were either killed or exiled. You better be sure you are right before you one day have to do some serious backpedaling. But then there is pride
Oh I thought you might be an ex-mormon or something or these people like NEMO on here who look into Church issues. But it looks like you aren't one or not even an ex-one. You have definitely done a lot of work researching for sure. There are more things, but you don't need me telling you.
I was employed at The Church Offices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1975 through 1980. One of my assignments there was to research in The Church Archives, and I had access to "sensitive" files in that official assignment. The result of that experience, I chose to leave The Church Offices, and was employed by Hughes Aircraft in CA. Little did I know that the Stake President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a friend of my boss. When he sent the local bishop to my home to inquire of me why my wife and I were getting divorced, I replied, "I do not recognize your authority over this family. You can leave my house." So, I chose to leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm officially a member of Community of Christ today. This is why I said to be kind to yourselves. We all must forgive them who are leading institutional churches "for they know not what they do". My Personal experience is that only the principles of Love Light and Truth reach into Eternity. So, my advice for LGBT + is to endeavor to attune with the vibrational frequencies of Love Light and Truth ourselves.
@AntonioAFelizJr - When I speak to devote Christians who hate their LGBTQA+ fellow Earthlings, I tell them that it seems to me that God sent people with differences as a test of how they follow his commandments of "Love Thy Neighbor", and how they failed the text, they just stare with open mouths.
@@ironeagle9850 I don't understand that question. To whom did you direct your question? As for myself, I do my best not to hate. I do my best to acknowledge the imperfections in us all. When I disagree with others, I do my best to be respectful because I know that's what evokes their return of respect. If my words didn't do that, please forgive me. Hate is never my intent
The idea that mormons stopped believing that Jesus was married in the 1960s is just false. We talked about it quietly in BYU religion classes in the 1990s. Even the idea that the seer stone in the hat was somehow public knowledge in the 1990s is pretty bogus imho. If you compare the rhetoric on the topic you will note that the real change didn't happen until about 2015, with hints of it coming around 2005. Nelson's quote in 1993 (as well as Maxwell's made at the same time but only published in 1997) was merely a reaction to Quinn who they had just excommunciated for telling the truth about seer stones and post-manifesto polygamy which continued in earnest until about 1905. The scholarly community knew about seer stones since 1834, but there were public denials into the 1980s at a minimum. While it's fine to ask Mormons to do some self introspection based on false teachings or prophecits, you may want to consider doing a little yourself given the various false prophecies in the new testiment of an imminent 2nd coming.
Thanks for noting that - super interesting to me! When I've asked about Jesus being married to street-level Latter-day Saints I interact with, they've either responded with "no, we've never believed that" or "I'm not sure." But in response to this video, several people have told me that they were taught that Jesus was married. And in terms of the seer stone - yeah. Agreed. In terms of "false prophecies" in the New Testament - are you referencing Matthew 24? Or something else?
@@GLM Note that when you quote nelson in 1993 regarding the seer stone in the hat, you really should be showing the article as origionally printed (available online). In the article, it has a picture of the translation with Joseph looking at gold plates to translate while on the opposite of a curtain from Oliver Cowdery. So even though he is partially acknowledging the translation process, the picture is literally showing something else. Most readers at the time (myself included) would entirely miss the fact that the stone in the hat method was the actual method. These incorrect artistic depictions continued to be published until Jan 2021 (Liahona). So while the church "came clean" on translation in 2015, they continued to send conflicting (and incorrect) messages regarding translation until at least 6 years later. I have not seen any incorrect artwork more recent than that. If you study the artwork and messaging you will see that in general it went from a "joseph looking at plates on the opposite side of a blanket from oliver" translation in the 1980s to a "Joseph directly looking at the plates opposite oliver at a table" in the 1990s depiction. There is some overlap however. If you study this topic in more depth, you will note that there was a period between 1905 and 1935 when the church was fairly open about the seer stone in translation and even taught it in sunday school. However, they generally did not mention the hat with one execption (New Wittness for Christ, BH Roberts, Vol 2, 1909). Not here to argue false prophecies. You can do a google search or read entries in wikipedia if you are interested.
Though I can't prove that Jesus was married, that if a man is to be a Rabbi, that man has to be married according to Jewish law. Either way, it doesn't bother me. I did research it years and years ago.
The brown seer stone in a hat is all hearsay upon hearsay. The church's official statement is it is sketchy and Joseph Fielding Smith said it was not true. Do some real research instead of believing mere hearsay gossip.
@@kenmccain9743 The contention that one has to be married and therefor Jesus was married is addressed by Dan McClellan (faithful member) in one of his videos. This tradition started 2-3 centuries after Jesus as I recal, so would not have applied to Jesus. He may have been married, or perhaps not, but there is no compelling evidence imho that he was polygamous. That strikes me as a 19th century invention meant to help to justify polygamy by those practicing it.
So, if “modern” prophets say that their predecessors were teaching false doctrines and would lose their souls, then why should one believes that Brigham Young was the right prophet to follow after Joseph Smith’s death and not the others? Or better yet, when the “prophet” Nelson says that a prophet would not lead the saints astray, does he mean Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, others about these false doctrines, and also includes Monson and Hinckley for using the term “Mormon”? Then one may ask, how the. We know who is right when a current “prophet” changes the previous prophets teachings? Or are all they just false prophets and do as they want when in power?
The church is trying to play it both ways. The Gospel Topics essays clearly describe the seer stone. But, two days ago -- June 1, 2024, I was in an LDS church and that painting from the Ensign, with Joseph's finger on the plates, acting like he's doing a traditional translation, hanging on the wall in the hallway in the church building. They may or may not still teach it, but that painting hanging on the wall speaks louder than the Gospel Topics essay.
@@BNichols021 I'm not 100% sure. I'm open to the idea, but I'm careful to fully accept it as we have been warned by modern prophets to avoid the "theory". I'm okay with thinking that Brigham Young was never fully understood, and that we will have to wait for further clarification on it. Maybe that clarification is that we must abandon the idea entirely. It does make sense within Mormon Cosmology, and this was explained in the most detail in Parley P. Pratt's book "The Key to the Science of Theology". I highly recommend reading that if you want to understand why we believe what we believe, and how we understand life and God.
@@Misa_Susakiif a prophet says that he has spoken Scripture to you (as Young himself said), and you must state that you can’t be sure if it’s true, then you are not treating him as a prophet. On the flip side, if Brigham claimed to have spoken Scripture and was blatantly false in His claims, then he has failed the biblical test of a prophet. There’s not really a middle ground here.
@@BNichols021 I acknowledge your opinion, but I don't have to agree to the rules you're laying out there. I can believe whatever I want to, although there is logic and a system to my belief. Thanks!
So how did we get the Book of Mormon? It came from somewhere. If it's all Joseph Smith's words, he must have been a good person, because there are many things in it that are very helpful. Because he was a good person, the writings were by ancient prophets I believe and therefore the word of God. I suspect some things are irrelevant.
@@GLM You said "I DO believe," you did not say that you DO know. Are you going to change your statement now to that you know? So, unless you and your interpretations are without flaw and continue your somewhat shallow and semi-informed criticisms, their must be room for a little error in your assessments - if a little, then their could be a lot. You sound a tad like Saul who became Paul. I hope you stop attacking certain followers of Jesus who are led by flawed leaders , just like ALL the other traditional Christians have very flawed leaders also. It all comes down to faith. That includes atheism too. It just means that when you take the leap of faith into the fog, will you step over a small crack in the ground, or plummet off the edge into the abyss. I have found that all directions of faith can be found very wanting - that includes atheism, statism, secular humanism, all forms of Chrisianity, etc. You know that the Catholic church recognizes internally 150 years or so of currupt popes. Many of your Christian sects offten accept Catholic baptisms, but they NEVER accept LDS baptisms. That's OK because they only accept their own also. It's also interesting that the idea of the Trinity was voted on at the councel of Nicaea to unify the factions. How do you kow they were correct. Those who voted against were either killed or exiled. You better be sure you are right before you one day have to do some serious backpedaling. But then there is pride.
actually, he started a business "finding lost treasures" and used the stones/hat method to find stuff for others, collecting a fee for his services. When that business fell apart as you would expect any 'magic' act that makes false claims, he moved on to religion.
5 If any of you is lacking wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given to you. 6 But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of a sea, driven and tossed by the wind. James 1:5-6 NRSV
The church website seems to use the words _theory_ and _doctrine_ interchangeably when speaking of the Adam-God theory/doctrine, and definitely calls it a false doctrine.
Prophets are not perfect. Moses erred. Job ran from his obligations. Peter denied Christ. Judas betrayed him. The scriptures are filled with a long list of men who were, as are all, imperfect. This does not lessen the authority of the Church, or weaken the true doctrines taught by the church. It is why the gift of the Holy Ghost is essential, it is why a fundamental doctrine of the church is reliance on the Holy Ghost for PERSONAL revelation and affirmation of the teachings of the brethren. The church was still young, still being established. We have a long history of false prophets and opinion masquerading as prophecy from well meaning, but misguided members in both antiquity and in the modern era. Should we then reject all scripture? No. As to the marriage of Christ, as marriage is part of the new and everlasting covenant, Christ would need to be married just as he needed to be baptized, even though he was without sin. However, we do not know to whom he was married, or if he was married while mortal. These are matters of speculation which gained popular traction; however, this does NOT make them doctrine. Pratt was teaching OPINION, nor was he ever the head and prophet of the church, so he never had authority to set the doctrine of the church. He was only giving his opinion. As with most who think they've found some flaw or error in the church, you either misunderstand or deliberately deceive on the matter. Every single one of these "doctrines" is not, nor ever was the official doctrine of the church. They were OPINIONS, were never included in the church's curricula or official publications. Just as in antiquity, where Paul wrote epistle after epistle correcting the false doctrines that arose in the disparate branches of the early church, so to, in this modern era, men are given to wanton speculation, some of which gains popularity among the members, and even some leaders, and like Paul of old, the PROPHET corrects these false doctrines. None of this makes the church any less the restored organization that Christ himself established or invalidates the priesthood authority and prophetic offices of his servants. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored church, established by Christ himself when the prophet Joseph was called to undertake that great work. It holds the keys of the priesthood and the authority to administer the gospel and its attendant ordinances, oaths, and covenants that are essential to the act of committing oneself to the discipleship of Christ. But don't take my word for it. Read the Book of Mormon, study the Old and New testaments. Ponder the words of Christ, the teachings of the Book of Mormon, and when you've done this, ask God. it's that simple, because the Holy Ghost will testify of its truth. There is a passage of scripture in the Book of Mormon. "Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do." 2 Nephi 32:1-3 This passage clearly indicates that even the angels receive instruction from the Holy Ghost. Even if an angel appeared to you, its words are subordinate to the Holy Ghost, from whom those words came. How much more so then are the words of imperfect men, even though they be prophets? It is why it is essential and has always been the mission and purpose of the church for men and women to constantly seek to have the Holy Ghost as their constant companion, eschewing any activity or behavior that dampens it's influence on our lives. We know the words of the prophet are true, not because a prophet speaks them, but because the Holy Ghost testifies they are true. And when they are not, there is no such confirmation. So, don't take my word for anything I've said or written. Do not take the word of prophets or apostles or learned members, or RU-vidrs. Seek out the words of Christ, "...for the words of Christ will tell you all things you should do."
Men err in their own ways as they are sinful, but specifically with regards to conveying God’s word to people, a prophet does not blatantly teach something as authoritative or inspired when it never was. ESPECIALLY when that teaching radically changes the way people view God. This is the most fundamental test of a prophet as outlined in the Bible. If they fail that test, then there is no value in calling them a prophet at all; they are merely liars.
In the New Testament, all believers, men, women, children, and even black people have been priests now for 2,000 years. It is not a position in a church. It is who we are in Christ. The true and living God never banned black people from the priesthood until 1978. I Peter 2:5, 9 Revelation 1:6; 5:10
I have read the Book of Mormon. God has revealed to me that it is false. Jesus Christ said that I don't need to believe the Book of Mormon is true. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost.
