That is part of the great deception. Man evolving into minor gods is Satan's great deception. The Christian bible does not say this directly because the "Book of Enoch" is not part of the bible. Enoch is a hidden apocryphal text containing information on the nature of fallen angels and the creation human/angel hybrids. What do you thing a "Saint" is in Catholicism? Is not a saint a higher being than a normal human that became exalted into the order of angels. A saint in LDS is the same thing. It is interesting to note that "Saint" and "Satan" have the same root meaning. It is where were we get the words Sacred, Sacrament, Sanctify, Sanctuary, and Sacrifice from. No wonder they call it a deception.
Exaltation and canonization probably is an inner secret of LDS not shared with common folk or outsiders. Same can be said about the Satanic connections in the Vatican. It is not a legitimate criticism of LDS just an observation. People can believe whatever they want.
To know the roots of all those words you need to understand Etymology. Words have roots and the roots have roots themselves so it requires a bit of digging. The English comes from the Latin and the Latin borrows from the Greek and Greek takes from Hebrew and Egyptian origins.
Sa' is a halo in Egyptian hieroglyphs. [link] Sa' is the top half the Ankh representing a divine magical protection where the Ankh is a hieroglyph symbolizing a higher being. Anhk is a cross with a loop on top representing something like a man with halo. The divine protection of the halo is called a Sa'. All kinds of words come from the Sa'. Saturn is a planet with a Halo ring. It means what is says and it spells what it means. A Sa' is ring so we get words like Sash. Sa' is protection so we get words like safe, save, and savior. Sabbath is the day the Lord "Saved" for rest. A Sa' is a halo of divine protection so Sa' is indeed the origin of the word Saint and why Saints are depicted with halos.
The second half of the word Satan is the Hebrew word An which means opposition. From this in the Greek we get Anti as in Antithesis or Antichrist. An is also the descriptor in the word Antagonist or antagonize. Put the Egyptian Sa' together with Hebrew An you get Sa'an which means Haloed Antagonist. It is right in the spelling.
You see with your eyes but essentially people like you are blind to the world and its' meanings.
Mankind A kind of man What kind of man A hue man Hue means light Light in latin is Lucis as in Lucifer.
To put a halo of light on a man is a luciferian deception that raises man to the divine. If the LDS Saint is not a declaration of divinity then they should not use that word.
I will study this along with my wiser brothers. I do respect your knowledge in your belief and in doing so will no longer comment on matters pretaining to the LDS Church without consulting you first. Though we are of opposit faith I will call you a respectable friend.
What few critics of the church seem aware of is that the canon of scriptures, the hymnal, the currently-accepted Sunday School manuals, and copies of the church magazines dating back to ca. 1971 can all be had - for free - on the church's website, www.lds.org. Additional materials can also be found on www.mormon.org, and if you're lucky you can live-chat with an actual missionary.
Generally speaking, except for a few manuals (such as the Church Handbook of Instructions), if it's not on one of these two websites, it's either not considered official or has been superseded by newer materials. I say this as critics of the church frequently cite works like "Mormon Doctrine" and "The Seer" as if they were official, when they really aren't; the former was a personal project whose early editions contain a good quantity of personal editorialization by the author, while the latter contained so much bad doctrine that Brigham Young told the members to tear entire pages out of the work.
I bring this up because even two prominent Evangelicals - Carl Mosser & Paul Owen - have admitted that the majority of the arguments currently in existence against the church are either based on faulty or outdated information & assumptions (for example, there are people who argue that the main body still practices polygamy), fabrications put in place by critics of the faith (such as the numerous conspiracy theories that have been spun over the last two centuries), or have already been answered (for example, Solomon Spaulding's manuscript was uncovered and analyzed in the 1890s, yet people still argue that it was the "true" source for the Book of Mormon); a transcript of their original 1997 paper can be read here: [link] .
Whenever the old arguments re-surface, a lot of Mormons respond by either total indifference (they take it as a sign that the other person is too lazy to conduct independent research) or by launching a counter-offensive (in which they not only dispel the arguments but turn the debate back towards the person first making the arguments). Either way, the discussion has officially gone down hill; the Mormon will likely be non-receptive to what the critic says, and the critic will generally have no clue why they didn't "succeed".
A re-examination of the "conviction" document that was done a few years ago determined that it was actually a bill for a pre-trial hearing. The regulations for documentation back in the 1820s were far different than what they were back in the 1970s when the document first surfaced, which is why the minister who stole it from the courthouse archives mistook it for being something more important than what it really was.
Huh. I didn't know that. Doesn't really change anything, though. It's pretty clear he was a charlatan, nevertheless, and even if we knew nothing about him at all, it wouldn't make the religion any more rational.
In 1997, two Evangelical theology school grad students - Carl Mosser and Paul Owens - did their master's thesis on pro-Mormon vs. anti-Mormon writings. Their unanimous conclusion was that of the materials they surveyed, the pro-Mormon writings were increasingly sophisticated & informative while the anti-Mormon writings were often just simple rehashes of bygone arguments.
Because of this tendency towards what is essentially intellectual laziness, pro-Mormon authors have leapfrogged an entire generation of anti-Mormon authors. The vast majority of anti-Mormon arguments that were in place at the time of the paper had essentially been dispensed with, but the anti-Mormon authors were so wrapped up in their own smugness that they didn't even notice they'd been left in the dust.
It's been 15 years, but their conclusion still holds true: the vast majority of hostile works generally contain outdated, if not openly false, information, while pro-Mormon works often tend to draw on the newest resources that their authors can get their hands on.
Perhaps nobody but the Mormons take their religion seriously? I don't suppose you'd need to bring your A-game to convince everyone that their religion is nuts, but then if you trying to convince everyone ang perhaps yourself of the opposite, you would by necessity devote much more effort. It doesn't matter to me, anyway. I haven't researched the arguments against the Mormon church in depth as it utterly fails to convince on its own merits. Being an offshoot of Christianity, it starts with the baseless, absurd premise of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator deity, and it just keeps going downhill from there. The story of Joseph Smith and his golden tablets sounds like a pretty obvious scam, and you ought to know when South Park can satire it by merely reporting it. Then you have the silly things, like the magic underwear, and now this whole "you get to be a god of your own planet" thing. It doesn't matter how up-to-date your research is; if you somehow travelled forward in time to fetch research from the future, you'd still have all that craziness to defend, and it can't even stand on its own.
Also, are you a Mormon? It seems to me that you'd need more than intellectual honesty to take the defense of the Mormon religion this far.
It's been to my experience that most apologist are in fact dishonest and wholly incredulous people who will spin in any which direction to defend their faith. To show that this isn't just a prejudice of Mormonism I give Ray Comfort the Banana Man: [link] here's the refutation of his claims [link]
Actually, even a lot of us Mormons are among the ones telling Comfort to shut up and sit down.
James Talmage, a senior leader in the 1930s and one of the church's top apologists, was actually a geologist by trade and was working as a professor when he was called into the leadership. Talmage actually participated in a three-way debate with fellow leaders B. H. Roberts (who was well-known for his "devil's advocate" approach in conducting research) and Joseph Fielding Smith (a hard-core defender of the faith) as to what the church's position on evolution was. Specifically, Roberts proposed a Sunday School manual that regarded it as fact, something that Smith opposed; given his status as a geologist, Talmage soon joined the debate, in the process introducing his son - also a then-prominent geology professor - into the debate as the younger Talmage had access to more current materials. The end result of the debate was that the church ultimately declared itself neutral in regards to the matter, officially stating that science was for the lab and religion for the church; if the two agreed then it was a happy day, and if the two disagree then it means that more experimentation is needed.
You'd be surprised how many doctors, scientists, and inventors are members of the church.
You don't need to be a member of something to defend them. People reserve the right to believe in what they want, and worship whoever they want as long as it follows the laws of the land. (not killing people, etc.) Also, South Park is a really poor example to be using, they make fun of everything under the sun.
The problem isn't that we're jumping into the future, its that anti-mormons are stuck in the past, being able to revert back to only a few basics, and once defeated, say "You lied" and call it quits. Te thing to understand about mormons, or LDS, is that we aren't as stupid as you or most people think. I am of course speaking about a majority, there are a few crazies in every tree. We look things up, we are encouraged to question things, think hard about them, and the most important is that we ask God about these things to know if it is true or not. Every good mormon has to do that. they have to know for themselves if this is true. Lets continue on to some other points.
The underwear isn't magical, neither do we believe them to be magical. They are for members who have been found worthy enough to go to the temple, where they make sacred covenants (or promises) with God and can be married with their spouse for eternity. The underwear, we call them garments, serve to remind us of the covenants we made with God during our first trip to the temple which occurs at the age of about 18. Its similar to the Clerical Collar that Priests wear. They wear a collar as an outward symbol of their separation between themselves and the secular world. We wear our garments as an inward symbol to remind ourselves that we have covenanted (or promised) with God that we will be better individuals towards all that we meet.
The God of your own planet isn't quite true. We believe that there is a chance in the afterlife, if you lived worthy and were a good person, that you would be able to continue to progress in life until you became like God. Not a god, but like him. You'll never be on equal terms with him or above him. I like to use analogies, it helps me connect. I am a Mormon as you have already figured out, but I'm also a returned missionary. You can think of this life as college. We are here, away from those who love us, and keep in sometimes regular contact with our Father through letters (prayers). He responds back, usually through others, usually never directly interfering because we have free choice and can do what we want. He wants us to do the best we can so we can be prepared for the rest of life, but ultimately, the choice is up to us. Someday, we will graduate. Some will have high degrees then others because they have done a better job then others, and some will have dropped out early. We we graduate (die) we go back home to our Father and the loved ones who wait for us there. Then, perhaps we will go and get our own home, and our own family.
We don't known for sure what will happen. Its what we believe will happen.
I would encourage you to go check out Mormon.org, its great. It tells more about the church, our beliefs, even has some testimonial videos of why people joined the church. It even has an place where you can submit your own questions, get anwsers, or get in a live chat with a member of the church. You don't have to join us, but if you want to learn more about someone, you should ask them not there enemies. Besides, if you wanted a Dodge, would you go and ask the Toyota dealer about it?
That's a very vague connection :I. And not that solidified of a connection if the comparison is just of one trait. Not to mention, from my knowledge, Theistic Satanists have to work towards godhead through magical means, not sit around and loaf for it (or hoping some magical entity bestows it upon them).
The mention of Mere Christianity by CS Lewis is a good point. I would also second the point of seeking out authentic or trusted sources when trying to find information on a particular group. Be it Mormons or otherwise.
Mormons believe that if they play their cards right they can become gods too. They go on missions to garner favor. Also Joesph Smith believed that Adam was a god. The 2 supposed angels who gave him the Book of Mormon were more realistically spirts of the nether world, and not heaven.
You sure the idea isn't some riff on Adam Kadmon? Even that is not exactly a god or God himself, but more like the first/original man in a spiritual sense. I find it not unlikely that Smith or perhaps Young encountered the concept through Freemasonry. The idea actually comes from Judaism.