MORMONS
IN
SHOCK
Love
warns
of
danger
Questions & Answers from Sharon's e-mail
1. WHY MUST YOU ATTACK THE LDS CHURCH?
5. (Waiting for your question) I'd love to hear from you. Sharon
1. WHY MUST YOU ATTACK THE LDS CHURCH?
It always amazes me that someone could read my warning and call it an attack. In
case you are wondering (some have asked), I'm not a disgruntled ex-Mormon. Have
never been LDS. The reason I put my pages on the internet is because I feel God
has called me to warn LDS of where they are headed. You know what a calling is.
If I were to ignore mine, I would be in trouble on the judgment day. I can
understand the frustration Mormons must feel when I say that they have been
deceived. But it is a part of what I feel I must do.
What I think is strange is that during the missionary lessons people are told that God (allegedly) told Joseph Smith all the churches were false, all their doctrines an abomination in the sight of God, and all their professors corrupt. What a slam! When I say negative things like that it is "attacking" -- when LDS do it, it is "sharing the gospel". Why the double standard? LDS have bought that story of what God supposedly said even though there were no witnesses to verify he said any such thing. I cannot imagine God doing such a thing at the very same time as he was sending REVIVAL to the churches mentioned in this first vision story (Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian). Does that make sense to you?
Call my message whatever you want to call it, but I beg of you (if you are Mormon) to determine whether or not it is true. If it's true, heed the message. If it isn't, be loving enough to show me wherein it is false. I will be eternally grateful. Sharon
2. YOU KNOW, THE THINGS YOU ARE SAYING ARE JUST YOUR
INTERPRETATIONS. WE HAVE A PROPHET TO LEAD US INTO TRUTH. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT.
WHAT IF YOUR INTERPRETATIONS ARE WRONG?
You have made a generalized statement. I, on the other hand, in my pages, have
dealt with specific passages, and told why they were misinterpreted. I have
spelled out some common sense rules for interpreting the scriptures (article on
Salvation definitions), and would simply ask if you find anything wrong with
those rules. If not, then I would just ask you to show me which rule I have
broken with which scripture. If having a prophet could guarantee a church
against false doctrine, then Christ would not have had to warn against false
prophets who come from within the church (Acts 20:28-30). How does one go about
determining whether any prophet is a true or false prophet? I read in II Tim.
3:16-17 that the scriptures are given for "reproof" and "correction" and
"instruction in righteousness". I believe that. They are my guide to knowing
what is right and correcting what is in error.
3. YOU MAY JUST HAVE FAILED TO PUT THE VERSES THAT SPEAK
OF 2 DESTINIES IN THEIR PROPER TIME SLOT. THERE IS DEATH, THEN THERE IS CHRIST'S
SECOND COMING; THERE IS A JUDGMENT AFTER 1000 YEARS. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT AT ONE
OF THESE TIMES WE WON'T BE ASSIGNED TO THE OTHER LEVELS OF GLORY?
Alma 40 speaks of what happens at death, D&C 101:65-66 and Matthew 13 speak of
the 2nd coming, and Rev. 20:15 and 21:27 speak of the final judgment, . None of
these speak of 3 levels in heaven.
4. You have misunderstood what "Paradise" is all about...
It is a common error thinking Christ forgave the thief on the cross because he
said "TODAY thou shalt be with me in paradise!" (Luke 23:43) But three days
later when He arose He told Mary "Touch me not ; for I am not yet ascended to my
Father." (John 20:17) So Paradise does not necessarily mean "heaven".
The ascension to the father that Christ was referring to in Luke 23:43 is tied
to the prophecy in John 14:3... and the actual idea behind the "touch me not" is
more the idea of clinging onto Christ as if he was back to stay...when he hadn't
even begun preparing mansions for us etc.... So...Christ died, took the thief
with him to the Paradise that is also called Abraham's Bosom in Luke (a
compartment in sight of hell)...so the thief was with him in paradise that
day...then at some point after that Christ took the thief and all the other
"good" guys in Paradise with him up to heaven...this event is referred to in
Eph. 4:8-10, and I think it may also be tied to the verses in Matt. 27:52...
this explains why Paradise is now seen as being in God's presence in Rev. 2:7
cp. 22:1. It was moved. The REASON behind this is that we are told in Hebrews
that the blood of bulls and goats couldn't really totally erase sin, but rather
it covered it temporarily until the time that Christ could fulfill what those
sacrifices SYMBOLIZED...as soon as the real sacrifice was done... these people
could then enter the presence of God.
Some have suggested to me that we have to take the "I haven't ascended to the father" completely literally. That can still be so. He may have simply ushered the souls to the gate of heaven and then returned to earth, only to actually ENTER heaven at his ascension a few weeks later. If he didn't really forgive the thief, then why would he justify the man in the story in Luke 18:9-14? To picture Christ being AMBIGUOUS at best on the cross is rather sick, in my opinion. He was making a promise of going to a GOOD place...WITH Christ.
5. (Waiting for your question) I'd love to hear from you. Write me at saintalk@mormonsinshock.com
