Comments about ‘Mormons beliefs once again under attack’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Oct. 10 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Truth or Consequences, NM

KC Mormon- you do not understand the meaning and context of those verses. Jesus was not calling them diety, rather He was accusing them of rejecting scripture. Ps. 82 shows that, in Hebrew, judges were called gods because their position of authority was to execute God's law- to go before the judge was to be judged by God's law, thereby to be judged by God. God's law called sinful men "gods" because they had been sent by God to execute his judgments in Israel (not because they were diety). Jesus was not blaspheming when he identified himself as one with the Father, as the Pharisees claimed. The Father had set him apart and sent him into the world with a far greater work than the judges of Israel received.

South Jordan, Utah

LOL, Pagan! These many comments are rather humorous to me--we, as LDS folk, walk a fine line between laughing at ourselves for being human, not being so super sensitive, yet also standing up for our beliefs and agreeing to disagree with those who are Christian. I have so many friends of different faiths and we all bring out the good in each other without trying to change each other's entire belief system. Believe it or not, they don't act repulsed by me because they think I am a member of a cult, although I do have to remind them that I don't have horns growing out of my head or have multiple husbands and I will drink an occasional Dr. Pepper in front of them just for shock value! Mitt can be himself and I believe in the American people who are intelligent enough, in the masses, to vote for whoever they want. It'll be sad if the reason they DON'T like Romney is only due to his religion. Cult or not, the man is honest and a very efficient businessman--I don't care what religion someone is with credentials like that!

KC Mormon
Edgerton, KS

Again put the word judge in place of god and see if it makes sense. Jesus has called himself the Son of God elevating himself to the position of God. The Judges are going to stone him for this. He asks them why are you going to stone me. They say because you have blasphemed by saying you are the Son of God. He then says the scriptures say you are judge if you are judges how can I blaspheme by saying I am the Son of God. The outcome of this is we are judges and you will be stoned to death. In the context of the verses judges simply does not save Jesus life but rather leads to his death. The only way it saves Jesus life is if gods truly means gods. If Jesus says the scriptures say you are gods so how can I blaspheme by simply saying I am the Son of God the outcome is Jesus lives another day. Your context simply does not fit. This is why the early Church Fathers taught theoses because they understood what Jesus said.

Truth or Consequences, NM

KC Mormon- You say "Jesus elevated himself to the position of God". Haven't you considered that Jesus Is God? Not just a god, but God? He is not just one of a bunch of gods, as LDS believe exist (ie: council of gods per LDS teachings) He is God! LDS are henotheistic (a type of polytheism) and not monotheistic as Christian denominations are.


Megan-, Read 1st John, Chapter 3, Verse 1 and 2: Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. This passage teaches plainly that the righteous who are exalted will be changed in such a way that not only will they be able to bear the presence of God and live, but they will also be like him.

What part of "we shall be like him" does not agree with us being like him? What father on earth would not want his child to inherit all that he has? Why would it be any different for our Father in Heaven? Isn't He more just and perfect than we are? Why should we think He would not want to have us inherit all we have?

Clearfield, UT

From the article: Mormon leaders have complained that critics take obscure or outdated teachings and describe them as core doctrine. The church cast aside the teaching of polygamy in 1890, and in 1978, abolished the barrier that kept those of African descent from full participation in the church.

It seems contrary to indicate that "God" changes his mind!

Religions are usually supposed to have been created by gods, at least on some level, and this greatly reduces the scope for acceptable errors. Gods, after all, aren't normally considered fallible in any way. If it is perfect, then any religion constructed around this god and by this god should also be perfect even if a few minor errors in practice creep in through human adherents. If some particular god exists, and this god is perfect, and a religion is created around it, then it shouldn't have significant contradictions or need changing to any large extent. The presence of such contradictions indicates that there is an error in one of those steps: the religion isn't created around that god, or isn't created by that god, or that god isn't perfect, or that god simply doesn't exist.

Clearfield, UT

What does it mean to respect someone's religion or religious beliefs? Many believers insist that their religion deserves to be respected, even by non-believers as well as different religions, but what exactly are they asking for? If they are simply asking to be let alone in their beliefs, that's not unreasonable. If they are asking that their right to believe be honored, then I agree. The problem is, these basic minimums are rarely, if ever, what people are asking for....instead, they are asking for much more. More and more, religions (including LDS) are objecting to what they call "intolerance" by people who are critical of the religion or religious beliefs. There is an increasingly popular attitude that religion deserves automatic respect and deference from everyone - even those who don't share that religion. The implication is that believers shouldn't have to be faced with criticism. This is wrong: religions aren't owed automatic deference and respect without criticism. We must remember to respect and tolerate religion and belief (including NON-belief) "differences", but accepting these differences doesn't mean tolerating or practicing discrimination, bigotry, violence, or hatred. Be careful of your own mirror before pointing out the cracks in anothers mirror!

Temple City, CA

It appears that the posts on this thread are meant as an example of what the article's title was referring to. If I didn't know that some of the posters were serious, I would assume that it was all just set up for illustration.

@megen: Yeah, you're right. We believe that humans can be exalted and become like God. We also believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct individuals. We understand that, according to the tenets of your religion, we do not represent true, historic Christianity. However, we are not claiming to be equivalent to any sort of Catholicism (Orthodox or Roman) or Protestant/Reformation type of Christianity. We submit, however, that we fit the dictionary definition of Christian because we believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that salvation rests in Him. We generally accept anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus as a Christian. If people privately believe otherwise, we probably would accept that, but when they say we shouldn't be eligible to run for president (as with Romney) or vote (as in Idaho) or even live (as in Missouri), we get a little defensive.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments