"Mormonism" vs "the Gospel"

Aaron32

Well-known member
Your talking points are not new, yet certainly not in line with older core LDS though either, they reflect the newer watered down picture of Mormonism.

If we continue, out discussion will reveal this.
And this is where the definition of "Mormonism" comes into play, of what's "fundamental" and what's not. What's "REAL" Mormonism verse "watered-down" Mormonism. This is how people, not even members of our church, claim they know my religion better than me, not even making the distinction between Mormonism vs the truthfulness of the restored Gospel.

Given my experience above, this is why I tell the people that have left the Church that their understanding is not my understanding.
Let me ask, if the Church isn't teaching Mormonism, who is? Mormonism has become, in essence, an ethnicity when the term "Mormon" shifted from an adjective to a noun, to now a verb (ie. "There's more than one way to "Mormon"). Hence, the Church doubling down on moving away from the "mormon" label. Could it be that the Church rejects the sentiment of Mormonism as their critics do? (And when I say "sentiment" I'm thinking of the analogy below.)

86b9b27c-3ed7-0706-b6fc-39eae00ad439


Forgive my crappy artwork. It's supposed to be a river flowing down the mountain. The living waters represents revelation received by prophets and apostles recorded in what we know as the "Standard Works". Each given authority downstream receives inspiration to teach to their intended audience - these teachings are also written in conference talks, magazines, etc. Older addresses are found in Church History records, Journal of Discourses, etc. Further downstream are those that continue on all previous addresses, adding their own personal perspective. And even more downstream we have, as you suggest, apologists, think tanks, and philosophers both in and out of the Church.

The difference between our reasoning, is I define Mormonism as I go upstream and receive it from the source, which is what church leaders counsel us to do. You define Mormonism as you go downstream or sideways. Both definitions are technically correct. It's ALL Mormonism. Yet, maybe we ought to distinguish Mormonism's cultural beliefs vs the gospel as defined by the church.

See if you can see the distinction.
The Gospel: "In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom." (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/gospel?lang=eng)

Mormonism: “Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priest craft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priest craft. …
"Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”

As you may have recognized, Mormonism is relative, the gospel is absolute.
Would you consider that a fair distinction?

If that be true, in the analogy, going downstream is relying more on "the arm of the flesh", going upstream relies on the Spirit and personal revelation.

Those who are of 'telestial' reasoning, are those is trust in certain men's authority, but not discovering for themselves overarching truths by revelation (given not by flesh and blood).
D&C 76:
99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.
100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;
101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.

If watered down Mormonism is adding more pure water to Mormon sentiment, then I consider that a good thing.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
"Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth
Then what is the truth behind the pre-incarnated Christ origination? What was the once not pre-incarnated Christ?

I once had a discussion with a Mormon who said Jesus always existed....But the truth is Mormonism seems to teach the pre-incarnated Jesus was created.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Then what is the truth behind the pre-incarnated Christ origination? What was the once not pre-incarnated Christ?

I once had a discussion with a Mormon who said Jesus always existed....But the truth is Mormonism seems to teach the pre-incarnated Jesus was created.
Can you cite the teachings of a pre-incarnated Jesus? That would help me answer your question.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Can you cite the teachings of a pre-incarnated Jesus? That would help me answer your question.
Well, I'm not going to spen time looking around on Mormon web sites....but from what I remember I've read on official mormon web sites the Father and celestial mother procreated in some fashion and brought Jesus...and his brother Lucifer into being. In other words the eternal Jesus..at one time wasn't eternal.
Maybe you can point us to it.
 

Woody50

Well-known member
This is how people, not even members of our church, claim they know my religion better than me, not even making the distinction between Mormonism vs the truthfulness of the restored Gospel.
And you assume that people who challenge you and Mormonism just don't understand or know? MANY who argue with you were deceived by the lie of Mormonism. Many more read, understand, talk with Mormons, and seek to discern how Satan has deceived you. We love you, and you are blind.

We cannot do this, only the One True God can. The Bible was never corrupted, as the LDS say. What a lame "god" you worship. Someone Who cannot preserve His own Words.

The rest of your post was typical blind drivel.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Well, I'm not going to spen time looking around on Mormon web sites....but from what I remember I've read on official mormon web sites the Father and celestial mother procreated in some fashion and brought Jesus...and his brother Lucifer into being. In other words the eternal Jesus..at one time wasn't eternal.
Maybe you can point us to it.
Mmmm...sorry, I really can't. I know it's not in the scriptures. Per the analogy in my OP, that would be sifting the the sentiment to find it, and I don't have any desire to do that.
There are statements that Jesus Christ is "firstborn" among spirits. But if the KFD be true, how can that be if spirits have existed eternally? Therefore, "firstborn" has more reference to "pre-eminence".
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
And you assume that people who challenge you and Mormonism just don't understand or know? MANY who argue with you were deceived by the lie of Mormonism. Many more read, understand, talk with Mormons, and seek to discern how Satan has deceived you. We love you, and you are blind.
I base my commentary on my experiences both in (formerly) or out of the Church. If you read my OP, there are two methods to understanding Mormonism. I believe those that rely on the arm of the flesh are deceived, whether they are still in or out of the Church.
We cannot do this, only the One True God can.
Agreed.
The Bible was never corrupted, as the LDS say.
Personally, I've seen very little corruption in the Bible. I'm sure most Mormons would agree.
I think the corruption comes from how it's interpreted on a Sola Scriptura basis.
What a lame "god" you worship. Someone Who cannot preserve His own Words.
I don't believe the loss of God's word is God's fault. It's man's fault.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Then what is the truth behind the pre-incarnated Christ origination? What was the once not pre-incarnated Christ?

I once had a discussion with a Mormon who said Jesus always existed....But the truth is Mormonism seems to teach the pre-incarnated Jesus was created.

IMO Both are a tracking program. ....

Possibly to be incarnated .......
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Please explain?

If they are in our existence, which seems to be the case, be you 'Mormon' OR 'Christian"

What are they doing, they doing there; (both of them are tracking for their righteousness sake ........)
 
Last edited:

Aaron32

Well-known member
You can read, yes? I'm starting to doubt that. I answered that, if you could only read.
I fail because I base my commentary on my experiences?
So...what's the solution? Just suspend all reasoning and trust you that I'm blind?
 

Markk

Active member
Given my experience above, this is why I tell the people that have left the Church that their understanding is not my understanding.
Let me ask, if the Church isn't teaching Mormonism, who is? Mormonism has become, in essence, an ethnicity when the term "Mormon" shifted from an adjective to a noun, to now a verb (ie. "There's more than one way to "Mormon"). Hence, the Church doubling down on moving away from the "mormon" label. Could it be that the Church rejects the sentiment of Mormonism as their critics do? (And when I say "sentiment" I'm thinking of the analogy below.)

The church is teaching Mormonism, the way they need to in order to keep the “stock holders” happy and content. Mormonism with a doubt, whether on purpose or by mistake, was designed by JS to change.

In the beginning the BoM was understandable and seemed Christian to people that were once Christian or simulated with Cristin thought. Th new nation was a Christian nation and everything centered around a Christian understand of God. The BOM God is pretty close to being triune by nature, at the least Modalistic. There is nothing about PH, polygamy, or any other core doctrine that separates Mormon thought from Christian thought.

Then as the church grew, and to my point, revelation started to change the church. As JS and his ”misinstry” grew, and as things need to happen to insure its growth, he would have a revelation to either negated a mistake...or add a new twist. If you read his revelations, both published and un published they really paint a changing church and changing doctrine.

Not only does the church and doctrine change, it is expected, and as I wrote designed to change.

So the church is teaching Mormonism the way it needs to in order for the church to survive, but it does not even come close to teaching core LDS doctrine.

Do you honestly believe you can someday be exactly like HF, with the same power, knowledge, dominion and glory? Or do you simply need to lessen this teaching and find a happy place brushing the teaching aside?

Most post baby boomer members can’t deal with these core teachings, the GA understands this, and spoon feeds them what they want to hear.

So again yes the church teaches Mormonism but not core LDS doctrine, not even close.
 

Markk

Active member
The Gospel: "In its fulness, the gospel includes all the doctrines, principles, laws, ordinances, and covenants necessary for us to be exalted in the celestial kingdom." (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/gospel?lang=eng)
That is a watered down talking point Aaron...break it down?

What are all the laws...lets start with that? Let’s maybe start with section 132 and what the law of eternal and covenant of marriage demands for “exaltation, from a historical interpretation?

The link you gave is a perfect example of a watered down subjective teaching. It does not even attempt to systematically exegete what it claims. Frankly as a ex-LDS, I am embarrassed in a weird way. It is absolutely deceptive...how on earth could a convert or young member understand what these words really mean by this watered down teaching? Who and where will they here the truth...Here? UTLM? From the Fundy’s?
 
Top