The Dark Side

Old Heresy never dies they just change thier name to LDS
1. Called by its followers "the New Prophecy", this movement is known to us as Montanism after its founder Montanus, a convert to Christianity. Around the year 170 he began to proclaim to his fellow believers that he was a prophet, that he was the very mouthpiece of that Spirit which the Lord had promised would "teach all things and guide into all truth" (John 14:26; 16:13).

Montanus was soon joined by two women, Priscilla and Maximilla who like him delivered oracles in a state of ecstacy, speaking not in their own persons but in that of the Holy Spirit.

2. Montanus and his companions represented a revival of the apocalyptic spirit and announced the forthcoming end of the world. The Lord was about to return, and the new Jerusalem would be set up in the vicinity of the town of Pepuza in Phrygia. As preparation for the end of all things they purified themselves and cut themselves loose from their attachments to society. The Phrygians, as they were frequently called, fasted longer and more elaborately than other Christians and discouraged marriage.
http://www.theologywebsite.com/history/montanus.shtml

Montanism- , apocalyptic movement of the 2d cent. It arose in Phrygia (c.172) under the leadership of a certain Montanus and two female prophets, Prisca and Maximillia, whose entranced utterances were deemed oracles of the Holy Spirit. They had an immediate expectation of Judgment Day, and they encouraged ecstatic prophesying and strict asceticism. They believed that a Christian fallen from grace could never be redeemed. Prisca claimed that Christ had appeared to her in female form. When she was excommunicated, she exclaimed "I am driven away like the wolf from the sheep. I am no wolf: I am word and spirit and power."

The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles
http://education.yahoo.com/reference...entry/Montanis
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm

Google - five points of fellowship
This is amazing. This is what I went through in November 1990. http://www.mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/masendow.htm

I didn't know I was being endowed as a Mason!!!!! Praise God that my eyes were opened.
Phi5 Senior Member

To many Jews, "baptized" has a greater emotional reaction because to them — and me — to posthumously baptize a Jew is to rape his soul.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,14...037136,00.html

Lying for the Lord refers to the practice of lying to protect the image of and belief in the Mormon religion, a practice which Mormonism itself fosters in various ways. From Joseph Smith's denial of having more than one wife, to polygamous Mormon missionaries telling European investigators that reports about polygamy in Utah were lies put out by "anti-Mormons" and disgruntled ex-members, to Gordon B. Hinckley's dishonest equivocation on national television over Mormon doctrine
http://www.mormonwiki.org/index.php?title=Lying_for_the_Lord&

Former Mormon bishop explains the collapse of his faith
McCue said, "I read Mormon history as the professional historians write it, and realized that my religious leaders had misled me as to how Mormonism started, and [recognized]&a pattern of Mormon leadership deception [that] goes back to Mormonism's beginnings with Joseph Smith."

It suppresses all information that does not encourage Mormons to be more obedient to current Mormon leaders. Hence, facts that strongly suggest Smith and other Mormon leaders are not trustworthy are airbrushed out of Mormon consciousness.
http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm
http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon164.html

Conclusion It would seem that Mormons who willfully declare the Journal to be unreliable fall into one of two camps. Either they are honestly ignorant of how and why these sermons were preserved and therefore have no authority to speak on the matter, or they are purposely being deceitful.

It appears obvious that one of the reasons a Mormon may wish to distance himself from the Journal is because it contains information with which he may personally disagree. I too am glad that discerning individuals recognize that the Journal contains some bizarre notions that should not be believed. However, Mormons who hold to this conclusion cannot escape the fact that they are also being intellectually dishonest

if they extol such spokesmen as prophets and apostles of God while being fully aware that they taught things that are considered blatant heresy by their church today. Sadly, that is the double standard many Latter-day Saints choose to employ.

If LDS leaders really feel that the Journal is unreliable they need to quit quoting it and admit to their members that Mormon prophets are quite capable of leading the church astray. The fact that the church has yet to offer an official statement denouncing the Journal also tends to speak volumes.
http://www.mrm.org/topics/miscellane...-eternal-truth