LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

. . .You seem to be laboring under the impression that everything I write is an attack. It is not. I am merely trying to learn about your particular branch of paganism.

Obviously, some of the things you write take the form of an attack.

Are there receptions at Mormon weddings that non-Mormons can attend?

Of course. They are typically held in LDS meeting houses.

If you do not make provisions for allowing non-Mormons to participate in some capacity then you are still using what other cultures have treated as a moment of inclusion as a means of exclusion.

They participate by attending wedding receptions, where they congratulate the bride and groom. Refreshments are served, socialization takes place, and sometimes guests are encouraged to dance to a live orchestra.

Thank you for the correction. That was enlightening. Is there a particular symbolism for baptizing on fast Sundays?

Apologies for being less than clear. Baptisms are usually held on the Saturday before Fast Sunday, although they can be held on a week night, too.

I'm not going to give you a history lesson about your own religion, or the mechanics of practicing polygamy in the territories that would eventually become the state of Utah. I'll leave that to the fine gentlemen at Irreligiosophy. This episode is as good a starting point as any:

Mormon Fundamentalism, Part I

Polygamy constitutes an unfortunate chapter in LDS history. I readily admit that.

I did give you a straight answer. I'd be allowed in any place of worship that wasn't restricted for safety, historical preservation or private ownership reasons. You seem fixated on your wording of "any building/room of your choosing" but that's not what we were discussing. We're not talking about administrative buildings, the accounting office, the pastor's office or basement storage, but the places of worship. Dance all around it you want, but the simple fact of the matter is LDS Mormons put restrictions on specific ceremonies that Christians don't.

Be aware that Mormons are Christians. The name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is not a single ordinance authorized by the Church that does not cite the name of Jesus Christ--from opening/closing prayers at meetings, to baptism, to ordination to priesthood offices, to the bearing of testimonies on Fast Sunday, to blessing and naming infants, to patriarchal blessings, to temple ordinances (including marriage), to "setting members apart" who have received a church assignment (including serving a mission), to administering to the sick and afflicted, to family prayer at funerals (before the casket is closed), to dedicating graves.

Your insistence that Mormons are not Christians is demonstrably untrue.

As for putting restrictions on "specific ceremonies," the Church has every right to do that, regardless of restrictions that other Christian churches may or may not impose. Have you done a survey?

 

[Craig4]

I'm looking forward to the post of yours where you cite chapter and verse for this being LDS doctrine.

That might be hard. It changes with the time and popular mood you see.

 

[catsmate]

<snip>

Back on topic, why do Mormons have a Catholic grade obsession with masturbation?

Actually the RCC is almost past it's masturbation obsession. It's got more important things to worry about.

Girls need female role models if they are to fulfill their biological destiny of becoming wives, homemakers, and mothers.

And what about becoming scientists, engineers, psychologists, nurses, artists, lawyers?

Looking for evidence of Mormonism. It probably won't happen but it sure would be fun.

There's a thread dedicated to the case here.


However there are a couple of points raised by that case which interest me and I wonder if this wouldn't be a better place for them.

What is the "second anointing" within the LDS? It's referred to as a "rare and secret ritual" that former Mormon Bishop Tom Phillips (one of the plantiffs in the UK case) underwent, which renders him immune to excommunication from the LDS, anyone got more info?

"Do not attempt in any way to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing." - LDS Church instruction manual

On tithing. How inflexible is the LDS on it's taxation of members? The case submitted to the UK magistrate included a reference

In their General Conference, an LDS General Authority taught: "if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing."

is this correct?

 

[Craig4]

Janadele, seriously, is there anything you wouldn't do if the President of the Mormon church told you to? This is the living prophet mind you, the one talking to your god. Under what circumstances would you refuse to do what your god commanded through his prophet?

 

[dudalb]

The Old Testament is rich in references to Jesus Christ. Here is a sampling:

Isaiah 7:14 (His birth).
Isaiah 9:6 (His destiny, including some of the names by which He shall be
known--"Wonderful Counselor," "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father,"
"Prince of Peace").
Micah 5:2 (His destiny).
Zechariah 9:9 (He will come and live under humble circumstances).
Psalm 22: 16-18 (Cruelty with which He will be treated).
53rd chapter of Isaiah (Detailed information about Jesus).
Malachi 4:2 (Second coming).

I hope this is helpful.

I think that a Jewish Rabbi would really question your interpertation of those Old Testament passages....

 

[skyrider44]

See my post 453 There has never been a dress code in the Church, and I give examples from my own ward. Individual members may attempt to bully people into doing what they believe is LDS teachings, but it is merely that, individual members bullying.

It depends on what you mean by "the Church." BYU-Provo has a dress code, BYU-Idaho has a dress code, BYU-Hawaii has a dress code, the Missionary Training Center has a dress code.

When you say "there has never been a dress code in the Church," you overreach. Some wards require young men who administer the sacrament to wear white shirts and ties.

 

[Pup]

is this correct?

Here's apparently where the quote came from:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/tithing-a-commandment-even-for-the-destitute?lang=eng

One of the first things a bishop must do to help the needy is ask them to pay their tithing. Like the widow, if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing. The bishop can help them with their food and other basic needs until they become self-reliant.

As to tithing in general, as far as I know, it's only required in order to get a temple recommend. One can be a member and attend the church indefinitely and never pay a tithe (just like one could drink or smoke or whatever--it's a commandment but one doesn't have to follow it to be a member, you just wouldn't get a temple recommend, unless you lied).

Unlike a lot of churches, no collection plate is passed so there's no public peer pressure to donate, so theoretically, only the member and his/her bishop would know who's a tithe payer and who isn't when the member goes for a private tithing settlement meeting with the bishop once a year. Some fairly boring discussion on that here, for example: http://tech.lds.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=2065&sid=d9caefb5df48ef1c30cef69233685633# .

For what it's worth, my wife (Cat Tale) has no income in her name, so all the household income is mine, and she's never paid a tithe out of my income obviously, and neither she nor I have received the least hint of pressure to donate anything and she receives a temple recommend annually because she's considered a "full tithe payer" (i.e. pays 10% of her zero income).

 

[Slowvehicle]

<ship of more bad formatting>
<snip fpr focus>
Polygamy constitutes an unfortunate chapter in LDS history. I readily admit that.

Be aware that Mormons are Christians. The name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is not a single ordinance authorized by the Church that does not cite the name of Jesus Christ--from opening/closing prayers at meetings, to baptism, to ordination to priesthood offices, to the bearing of testimonies on Fast Sunday, to blessing and naming infants, to patriarchal blessings, to temple ordinances (including marriage), to "setting members apart" who have received a church assignment (including serving a mission), to administering to the sick and afflicted, to family prayer at funerals (before the casket is closed), to dedicating graves.

Your insistence that Mormons are not Christians is demonstrably untrue.

As for putting restrictions on "specific ceremonies," the Church has every right to do that, regardless of restrictions that other Christian churches may or may not impose. Have you done a survey?

Be so kind as to provide chapter and verse from the εὐαγγέλιον where Ίησοῦς ὁ Χριστός is recorded as having preached against (or even mentioned), say, homosexuality; or is recorded as having taught that, for instance, marriage as an institution would exist after the resurrection; or is recorded as endorsing (arguendo) that humans might become 'gods' of their own planets...

There's a sport.

 

[halleyscomet]

Be aware that Mormons are Christians. ...



Your insistence that Mormons are not Christians is demonstrably untrue.

Not according to most Christian denominations. Your post listed several ways your faith invokes the name of Jesus, but that doesn't make you Christian. Your cosmology is a pagan one, you merely include a deity named Jesus in your pantheon. You include books in your scriptures that Christians deem blasphemous and heretical. You can call yourself a Christian if you like, but don't expect any Christian denominations to consider you one.

Your claim to be a Christian is demonstrably untrue. The only way you can assert a Christian identity is to dilute the term to the point of being meaningless. There are Hindus who consider Jesus to be a god. Does adding Jesus to their pantheon make them Christian?

I wish to point out, I am passing no judgement upon you for being pagan. I just prefer sticking to accurate terminology. You are a pagan. This is a classification, not a value judgement. There's nothing wrong with being pagan, but claiming to be something you're not is a bit comical.

 

[skyrider44]

Actually the RCC is almost past it's masturbation obsession. It's got more important things to worry about.


And what about becoming scientists, engineers, psychologists, nurses, artists, lawyers?

They are free to do that--and some do. Where is it written that they can't be both?

There's a thread dedicated to the case here.


However there are a couple of points raised by that case which interest me and I wonder if this wouldn't be a better place for them.

What is the "second anointing" within the LDS? It's referred to as a "rare and secret ritual" that former Mormon Bishop Tom Phillips (one of the plantiffs in the UK case) underwent, which renders him immune to excommunication from the LDS, anyone got more info?

I am uninformed about a "second anointing," although it may refer to what is known (but no longer talked about to any degree) as "making one's calling and election sure." The idea is that if members live perfectly, the Lord will seal their exaltation on them while they are still in mortality.

: On tithing. How inflexible is the LDS on it's taxation of members? The case submitted to the UK magistrate included a reference
is this correct?

When a member reports the status of his/her tithing to the bishop at the end of the year, he/she is asked, "Is this a full tithing?" The member's response is never questioned. The bishop simply accepts it in recognition of the fact that the member is responsible to the Lord for his/her answer.

 

[skyrider44]

It is actually a very easy statement to understand and one that would be well worth your effort.
What was said (and quite clearly) is that by using religious arguments to deny gays rights, you give our government a right to use religion as a justification for any law. Since Mormons are a minority in our country, Mormons can easily become a suppressed group.

A Constitutional impossibility; i.e., Amendment I.

: Your hatred of others blinds you to this undeniable truth.

I do not hate others, and I resent the slur.

 

[skyrider44]

I'm looking forward to the post of yours where you cite chapter and verse for this being LDS doctrine.

About six years ago, the First Presidency of the LDS Church issued a document titled "THE FAMILY: A Proclamation to the World." That document is available online (enter the name into your search engine).

I'm quite certain it addresses your "looking forward" request.

 

[pakeha]

Note the following:

". . .three researchers put forth a study that was published on Wednesday (8 Jan.) on the Public Library of Science website saying they've found that men and women feel and behave in markedly different ways. 'They're almost like different species,' Paul Irwing, one of the researchers, told the Huffington Post." (HUFF POST, "Men and Women's Differences Extend to Personality,"
Claire Gordon, posted 01/9/2012)

The research also involved Marco Del Giudice (University of Turin) and Tom Booth (University of Manchester). The methodology consisted of having 10,000 Americans take a questionnaire designed to measure 15 discrete personality traits. The researchers then analyzed the responses to the questionnaire. Results: "Men are far more dominant, reserved, utilitarian, vigilant, rule-conscious, and emotionally stable, while women are far more deferential, warm, trusting, sensitive, and emotionally 'reactive'" [emphasis added]. Said Paul Irwing, "If you translate it into the simplest terms, only 18% of men and women match in terms of personality profiles, and that's staggeringly different from the consensus view" [emphasis added]. The article quotes Del Giudice thus: "In past studies. . .researchers would simply add up all the survey responses. This led to imperfect results because of careless responses and misreadings." Del Giudice says that by means of a sophisticated method ("structure equation modeling"), they were able to remove this random error. Del Giudice adds that past research compared one variable at a time. He notes that "this method led to underestimations of the sex differences." How so? "If you were to examine the differences between men and women's body types using the traditional method, you would look at torso circumference and waist-hip ratios, one by one." Del Giudice says that in his method, all the figures are crunched into one much larger number, which is what he did with personality.

The study has its critics, of course, to which Irwing responds: "I think distorting science because of what you would like to believe, or because of what you think the political consequences are, is very dangerous" [emphasis added] .

Wait.
You're claiming biological destiny based on a questionnaire?
"The methodology consisted of having 10,000 Americans take a questionnaire designed to measure 15 discrete personality traits."

I'm looking forward to seeing how biological destiny is LDS doctrine.

Also, what constitutes appropriate clothing for a woman?

 

[Cat Tale]

In their General Conference, an LDS General Authority taught: "if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing."
On tithing. How inflexible is the LDS on it's taxation of members? The case submitted to the UK magistrate included a reference is this correct?

Here's the paragraph that the quote came from it was the April 2005 General Conference.

One of the first things a bishop must do to help the needy is ask them to pay their tithing. Like the widow, if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing. The bishop can help them with their food and other basic needs until they become self-reliant.

Funny the rest of that paragraph was left out. As LDS we believe that tithing brings forth spiritual blessings (as mentioned in the book of Malachi), and those blessings should be available for everyone. Yes, we ask everyone to tithe, and yes the Church has always assisted members when needed. Before I married, I had been in the position of needing Church assistance, and they've always been there when I've needed them. I know many others who have been in similar situations and the Church has been there for them, as well.

 

[Wolrab]

Quote:
Face the facts. A secular society is to your advantage, because in a theocratic one, Mormons are going to be seen as even worse than homosexuals.

Do you seriously believe Mormons could establish a theocratic state? Hilarious.

If you read what is there, he makes no mention of a Mormon theocracy, that is laughable. A standard Christian theocracy would more than likely see any LDS burned at the stake for heresy and blasphemy.

 

[Pup]

Your cosmology is a pagan one, you merely include a deity named Jesus in your pantheon.

I'm not following. You seem to be implying that Mormons worship lots of different gods, similar to Hindus?

But they don't worship anything more than typical Christian churches: God and Jesus. Like in virtually all Christian churches, there are other supernatural figures: Lucifer, angels, the Holy Ghost, etc. But the LDS church considers Jesus to be the god of this earth and follows the commandment to "have no other gods before me."

The other gods in the LDS pantheon--the rest of God's relatives--are considered just as unknown, unknowable, unimportant and unworshipped to them, as all the other references to other gods in the Bible's pantheon: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gods.html

 

[skyrider44]

Not according to most Christian denominations. Your post listed several ways your faith invokes the name of Jesus, but that doesn't make you Christian.

I trust that the following will be enlightening.

On March 20, 2012, LDS Apostle Jeffrey Holland spoke to students at the Harvard Law School as part of the school's annual "Mormonism 101" series. One of the students asked if Mormons were Christians. Here is Elder Holland's response:

"We are not fourth-century Christians, we are not Nicene Christians, we are not creedal Christians of the brand that arose hundreds of years after Christ. No, when we speak of 'restored Christianity' we speak of the Church as it was in its New Testament purity, not as it became when great councils were called to debate and anguish over what it was they really believed. So if one means Greek-influenced, council-convening, philosophy-flavored Christianity of post-apostolic times, we are not that kind of Christian. Peter we know, and Paul we know, but Constantine and Athanasius, Athens and Alexandria we do no know."

Your cosmology is a pagan one, you merely include a deity named Jesus in your pantheon.

So, it's your position that Peter, Paul, and the other apostles who were followers of Christ were pagans. Is that what you believe? BTW, the first definition of "pagan" is "heathen." The second definition is "one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition). I encourage you to use words with greater precision.

You include books in your scriptures that Christians deem blasphemous and heretical.

They are free to err to whatever extent they wish, just as you are.

You can call yourself a Christian if you like, but don't expect any Christian denominations to consider you one.

Actually, there are Christian denominations who are tolerant--even respectful--of the LDS position; hence, your statement is, at the least, misleading.

Your claim to be a Christian is demonstrably untrue. The only way you can assert a Christian identity is to dilute the term to the point of being meaningless.

Those who diluted the meaning of "Christianity identity" did so centuries after Christ's mortal ministry.

There are Hindus who consider Jesus to be a god. Does adding Jesus to their pantheon make them Christian?

Your question is irrelevant, inasmuch as Hindus have never claimed to be Christians. It's a hypothetical abstraction.

I wish to point out, I am passing no judgement upon you for being pagan.

That's kind of you but insignificant, inasmuch as any such judgment is without foundation.

I just prefer sticking to accurate terminology.

Refer above to the primary definitions of "pagan." Having used that word, and having a commitment to "accurate terminology," you are obligated to qualify it.

[quote[ You are a pagan. This is a classification, not a value judgement. There's nothing wrong with being pagan, but claiming to be something you're not is a bit comical.[/QUOTE]

I cannot disabuse you of a falsity, though I fail to find any humor in it.

 

[skyrider44]

Here's apparently where the quote came from:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/tithing-a-commandment-even-for-the-destitute?lang=eng

The statement fails to acknowledge the purpose of fast offerings. To recap: Faithful LDS fast for at least two meals on the first Sunday of each month. The money they would have spent on food is given to the bishop, who then uses it to help needy members of his ward. Hence, the idea that by paying tithing destitute members will go hungry is ludicrous. Fast offering funds are also used to buy clothing, to pay utility bills, to help with medical expenses, and--yes--to make rent or mortgage payments.

 

[I Ratant]

The distinction has no distinction...pagan/Christian
It's like any author can gin up a story about zombies which are at odds with all the "accepted" definitions of a zombie.
There not being any, any version is as good as any other version... so it is with religions... there not being any Big Sky Daddy or Daddies, or Mommies, the imagination can (and does) run off in all directions at the same time, whilst proclaiming THIS direction is the correct one.
If someone wishes to call himself a Christian, then that he is.
"By their deeds ye shall know them"... and history shows those deeds are despicable!
Any differing pomp and circumstances in a pantheon is exactly as valid as the pomp and circumstances in any other variation on the theme.
It's ALL fantasy!

 

[Cat Tale]

It depends on what you mean by "the Church."

I thought that part of the discussion was women being "forced to wear dresses," to church. The link I provided is to one of my previous posts on the topic and had a link to the 1971 and 1978 policy, which I thought pretty well answered the question of what I meant by "church."

'The Church has not attempted to indicate just how long women's or girls' dresses should be nor whether they should wear pant suits or other types of clothing. We have always counseled our members to be modest in their dress, maintaining... standards... [that] would not be embarrassing to themselves and to their relatives, friends, and associates. We have advised our people that when going to the temple they should not wear slacks or mini-skirts, nor otherwise dress immodestly. We have not, however, felt it wise or necessary to give instructions on this subject relative to attendance at our church meetings, although we do feel that on such occasions they should have in mind that they are in the house of the Lord and should conduct themselves accordingly.'

The 1978 quote was about nursery and suggesting that Sisters wear pant-suits so they're more comfortable on the floor with the children.