An Atheist in an ocean of Theists

Saw this a while back. Mostly true with some speculation. I'll go through and list what is speculation or false as I understand the doctrine.

God with many wives. There is almost no doctrine concerning gods wife or wives.

Celestial sex. The method of heavenly procreation is not mentioned.

Neutral spirits in the battle of heaven are born with black skin. Sort of. It is believed that 'fence sitters' were born in less ideal conditions. Not necessarily black. And I think it is just a general belief and not doctrine. Also, it is not the mormon explanation for black people. It is taught that they descended from Cain. And that black skin was the curse given to Cain.

God is Adam theory. This was taught by Brigham Young. It has been completely abandoned.

God having sex with Mary. Speculation. I'm sure most mormons believe god used magic and not his actual penis. No doctrine that I know deals with this at all.

Jesus had 3 wives. I've never heard that one. It is not current doctrine. Joseph being descended from Jesus is also not taught and I have never heard of it.

Well that's about enough of that. I'm only half way through. But you get the idea. It is generally on track. Most of the errors don't really make it sound any more ludicrous than what it actually is. You should also note that most mormons are largely unfamiliar with broad range doctrine. Most of the teaching tracts stick to the basics.

Draco, you and I are often on opposite poles, but I’ll take this as an honest inquiry and respond as best I can. I am a high priest and returned missionary to France. I have spent my life as a “Mormon,” but consider myself a convert as I applied the advice I will offer. This video is obviously not a production by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. One would not typically expect to find completely factual accounts of what another believes by going to a second or third party. It is like going to Red to learn about Blue, or to Square to learn about Circle when one would be better off going directly to Blue and Circle. If you want a full treatise on the beliefs of the LDS faith, I suggest you read their standard works, the scriptures: the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price and, lastly, the words of living prophets in their respective ages. Yes, this is longer than a seven-minute video, but most things of worth are not in sound bites.
There are a number of inaccuracies in this video. The statement that Joseph Smith has done more for mankind “than even Jesus Christ” is absolutely not true. The true statement, from the Doctrine & Covenants 135:3 is: “Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.” The important exclusion of Christ was turned on its ear as a deliberate misquote.
Another inaccuracy is that Elohim “had sex” with Mary, thus producing Jesus. It is not known how that conception

richardcheney,

Thank you for your detailed responses. I wasn't trying to get a rise or start and argument. I was simply curious. I took the video as a piece of propaganda, that it most surely is. Though, most propanda, like rumors are born in truths, which makes them so effective. I was only curious about the truth.

I agree that the best place to get the doctrines of the church, is the church. However, I also believe that the church, like any organization exercises damage control when it makes mistakes. This is why apologists are necessary. So, the best place to look is a 3rd party with neutrality, when it comes to finding truths, that the church is reluctant to admit to. I know that this particular piece of media is not that. So know that I am, in no way, accusing the church of anything with this video.

My family and I were brought here by the military. We moved because of the opportunities here and my wife had a cousin that lived here.. ;)

-D-

I have to say those are some very interesting and intriguing videos, that portray the Mormon Religion.

Apparently, he doesn't feel the need or desire.

Skooby I'm impressed with your knowledge.
But I'm sorry you've never been laid spiritually! Unbelievable sex! through the moon!

These two videos both begin with a premise that is not correct: that the position of the church prior to 1978 relative to blacks and the privileges of the priesthood was a racist doctrine. The term is used far too easily and without the scope that the church engages with regard to all people in an eternal perspective. The videos present the position of the church as though it were unchangeable doctrine that was changed only under the social pressure of the American civil rights movement.
The doctrine, not the socially-acceptable, politically-correct position, was and has always been that all worthy men in the latter days would have the privilege of holding the priesthood. The history of the priesthood has, in other ages, also been denied to some people; this is not a modern phenomenon. For example, during the age of the Israelites post-Egyptian captivity, the priesthood was limited to the tribe of Levi; the eleven other tribes were banned from it. Were that a doctrinal concern, it should still be the case today. It is obviously not.
I grew up concerned about this issue; I had several black friends in Los Angeles, where I was raised, and two of them were members of the church. I was pained for their lack of privilege, but my father taught me that this was not immovable doctrine, but a condition that would endure for a time, but not for eternity. I grew in the hope that their time would come quickly. In the scope of things, it did. That it did not quickly enough for some is evidence that we do not fully understand either the cause or effect of such temporary inter

richardcheney,

I appreciate your explanation, but I don't buy it at all. The coincidence is too great and your referencing the bible to an atheist (me), to explain the denial of priesthood of other people, only tells me that bigotry existed thoughout the history of the bible. This is a typical apologists response. Wouldn't it be better to just come clean and say that bigotry existed in the church?

This isn't the only example of what I mean. Take for instance where the church first said, before BNA evidence could be used, that Native Americans were descendants of Jews. DNA evidence proved that assertion in the B.O.M. wrong and not apologists are saying that the original natives descended from jews were killed off... Anyway... There is also absolutely no anthropological/archaeological proof of any of the things mentioned in the Book of Mormon other than geoghraphic location.

How about instead of inventing more excuses to huge flaws in the LDS religion, the followers reflect on these flaws and evaluate their believes again. Blind faith, in my opinion, is dangerous.

-D-

Dracco,
I appreciate that you do not accept biblical references. I think we must agree to disagree, and that's fine. No harm, no foul. Relative to the DNA issue, I'm afraid I'm going to have to go back to the Bible, but only for genealogical reference. I am not surprised that all comparisons of DNA between native Americans and the current dwellers in Palestine have not found traceable evidence of matches. The modern dewllers of Israel who claim ancestry are descended from Abraham and Isaac, his second son. "Israelites" of the Bible all share common ancestry with Isaac, through Jacob, his son, [later called "Israel"] But there, the paths diverge. The people we call "Jews" today have common ancestry through Judah, son of Jacob and Leah. Judah was her fourth son. Jacob had four wives in all, bearing him twelve sons between them. Through Jacob's second wife, Rachel, she bore Joseph. Joseph had two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh. Lehi, the father of the family described in the Book of Mormon, was descended from Manasseh according to his own geneaology records. Therefore, the modern Jews of Paelstine and those native Americans who may have descended from Lehi have different mitochondrial DNA, the tracers by which such bloodlines are made and which are passed down through females in their respective generations, but which both males and females carry. Becuase the two sets of peoples are from different originating mothers [Leah and Rachel], one should not expect a DNA match.
As for Anonymas, I note for interest's sake that your self-stated hatred might itself be constr