LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

Wait.
You're claiming biological destiny based on a questionnaire?

Properly structured, administered, and interpreted, questionnaires are valuable research tools. They have been used extensively across a wide spectrum of disciplines.

 

[skyrider44]

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

Well said, Pup.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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."

You may have missed this, so if the moderators will allow, I will substantially repeat a post:

Be so kind as to provide chapter and verse from the εὐαγγέλιον

(added) ...in its "New Testament Purity"...

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 is also an issue to be raised about not arising "...hundreds of years after Christ..." but that is for another day.

<snip for focus>
Those who diluted the meaning of "Christianity identity" did so centuries after Christ's mortal ministry.

Once again, I encourage you to cite chapter and verse from "Christ's moral ministry" (in its "New Testament purity") (which would mean, for instance, quoting words and teachings directly attributed to Christ, not someone else who diluted the meaning of "Christian identity" by claiming to speak with Christ's authority, in the process adding to and changing "Christ's moral message") where Christ himself is said to have said anything about homosexuality. Or about marriage existing after the "resurrection". Or about people becoming 'gods'.

I look forward to learning the undiluted, unadulterated version of "Christ's message" in its "New Testament purity" that was attributed to Jesus, said to be said to be "the Christ", himself and himself alone, in the canonic materials.

<snip for focus>

 

[joobz]

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

And yet that is the exact amendment that the Mormon church actively attempts to bypass when they try to get the US to deny gay marriage. If they are successful in doing so, they erode the strength of the first amendment.

 

[pakeha]

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.

Not really, skyrider.
We're in a moderated thread on the subject of the LDS.
If you're presenting a POV and want us to take it as an example of LDS doctrine, cite your sources and link to them, please.

 

[pakeha]

. . .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.



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



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.



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.



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?

Like so many things, skyrider, it's a bit more complex than citing the name of Jesus Christ.

Wiki gives an overview of Mormonism and Christianity^WP and here's an article that discusses why the Mormons' claim to being considered questionable
http://www.seafox.com/mormons.html

"[...]One question that I would ask all Mormons is this: "If I accept you as a Christian, will you accept me as a Mormon?" Would you accept me as a Mormon if I reject Joseph Smith and all the LDS prophets as being prophets of God. If I do not believe in the Book of Mormon or the LDS Scriptures, baptisms for the dead, the temple endowments, the LDS gospel, would you accept me as a Mormon? The answer is obviously, you would not. In like manner, when Mormonism denies the Bible and every Christian doctrine do you think that Biblical Christians should accept Mormons as Christians? Again the answer is very obvious, no we will not. You cannot legitimately claim to be Christians when you refuse to accept what the Bible teaches and what a true Christian believes.

I would implore Mormons to honestly and openly examine their teachings about God and Jesus Christ and examine who the Bible defines as being a Christian. There is no benefit in calling yourself a "Christian" when Biblically you are not. [...]"

 

[Janadele]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/m ... january-12

"some news reports have given the impression that the Church has changed its stance on same-sex attraction. We caution reporters and readers to remember that the Church’s position on the issue of same-sex attraction has not changed. The Church’s doctrinal position is clear and unchanging: Sexual activity should occur only between a man and a woman who are married. The Church teaches that same-sex attraction is not a sin, but acting on it is." Acting on it, of course includes thoughts and thinking. Thoughts may come uninvited, not acting on same-sex attraction includes dismissing such thoughts, not dwelling upon them, and not defining oneself on them.

 

[Pup]

"In like manner, when Mormonism denies the Bible and every Christian doctrine..."

That makes no sense, according to the normal usage of the words. The King James Bible is one of the three central scriptures of the LDS church, and no faithful member would say he denied the Bible. Nor would a Mormon deny basic Christian doctrines like Christ being the son of God and dying for everyone's sins.

I'd hope that the author isn't that ignorant, so there's probably some attempt at a trick question, because taken at face value, it's just plain wrong.

The whole question is a strange one:

"'If I accept you as a Christian, will you accept me as a Mormon?' Would you accept me as a Mormon if I reject Joseph Smith and all the LDS prophets as being prophets of God..."

Let's say a Baptist was addressing a Catholic: If I accept you as a Christian, will you accept me as a Catholic even though I don't believe that the pope is a successor to St. Peter?

Or a Methodist addressing a Baptist: If I accept you as a Christian, will you accept me as a Baptist even though I don't believe baptism by immersion is necessary?

LOLwut? It doesn't make sense to expect to be accepted by another sect while denying the specific things that make that sect different from one's own.

Some members of other denominations hate Mormons. Some Protestants hate Catholics and some Catholics hate Protestants, some Baptists hate Methodists, etc. etc. They try all kinds of word games to win at proving they're the only true Christians and everyone else is wrong. Some Mormons do it too, of course.

Meanwhile, polling a broader base, here's a Pew Research survey asking non-Mormon US Christians "Are Mormons Christian?"

http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/09/02/glenn-beck-christians-and-mormons/

52% answered yes, 31% no and 17% don't know.

 

[bruto]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/m ... january-12

"some news reports have given the impression that the Church has changed its stance on same-sex attraction. We caution reporters and readers to remember that the Church’s position on the issue of same-sex attraction has not changed. The Church’s doctrinal position is clear and unchanging: Sexual activity should occur only between a man and a woman who are married. The Church teaches that same-sex attraction is not a sin, but acting on it is." Acting on it, of course includes thoughts and thinking. Thoughts may come uninvited, not acting on same-sex attraction includes dismissing such thoughts, not dwelling upon them, and not defining oneself on them.

Janadele, unfortunately the link you provide is not working. In a moderated thread where editing is not possible, you need to work on this. Go to the page you're linking to, copy the URL directly from the browser, and then put it into the post.

The statement you cite, though, is interesting, in that it fudges the idea of what is "not a sin." If you read the post carefully, it's clear that although the attraction is not quite a sin, it would be a sin not only to act on it but even to accept it. It's clear that to the person above, a person who adheres to Mormon teachings, but is comfortably gay, would be sinning in a way that differs substantially from, for example, a heterosexual person who adheres to Mormon teaching and refrains from premarital sex. To meet that writer's standards, it would be a sin even to say that one is gay. One can, presumably, admit instances of gay attraction, but only in the context of denial and regret, and never consider it as a part of one's character. One cannot, in this person's view, for example, be a well behaved gay Mormon and hope for a change in policy, since it's a sin to consider oneself "gay," and a sin to wish for anything but the extinction of the inappropriate attraction. It must be "uninvited." It's hard to see how the Church's professed denial of homophobia can coexist with a statement like the above. I suppose it's a trivial truth that you can call for gay people to hate themselves without yourself hating them, but it's a trivial distinction which obviously has little usefulness in making the world an easier place to live in.

I would also mention here, that this statement, while seeming consistent with what we've seen from Janadele here, would not seem to be consistent with the attitude voiced by Skyrider44. I'd be interested to see what he makes of this.

 

[Cat Tale]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/m ... january-12

"some news reports have given the impression that the Church has changed its stance on same-sex attraction. We caution reporters and readers to remember that the Church’s position on the issue of same-sex attraction has not changed. The Church’s doctrinal position is clear and unchanging: Sexual activity should occur only between a man and a woman who are married. The Church teaches that same-sex attraction is not a sin, but acting on it is." Acting on it, of course includes thoughts and thinking. Thoughts may come uninvited, not acting on same-sex attraction includes dismissing such thoughts, not dwelling upon them, and not defining oneself on them.

True, that's what I've been saying all along, so you're finally agreeing with me. BTW, the link didn't work, here's a working link.

Funny you skipped over the first and last paragraphs. The first being:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

In other words, homosexuality is no longer considered to be something that one chooses.

And the last "

We also remind journalists and readers of the vital message on mormonsandgays.org that those with same-sex attraction “need our love and understanding. God loves all His children alike, much more than any of us can comprehend, and expects us to follow."

So, still, my question to you remains. You laughed at my using the Huffington Post as a source. I assume that it's where the HP said that since Prop 8, "the church has been actively reaching out to the LGBT community 'to heal tensions?'" BTW, did you notice that immediately after my post, Skyrider used the Huffington Post as his source?

Also, you've never really addressed why you believe anti-Mormon sites that preach that there's a "gay agenda." My question was, and still is, why are those sites correct about gays, but not Mormons? Or are they correct on both counts? To me, a lie is a lie. If they're lying about Mormons than I cannot trust what they're saying about gays.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . In like manner, when Mormonism denies the Bible and every Christian doctrine do you think that Biblical Christians should accept Mormons as Christians?

As it stands, your statement requires clarification. The LDS Church's eighth Article of Faith states: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . . . Note that some on this thread have denigrated the Bible because of the numerous copies/versions/translations of it that have occurred over centuries.

You realize, I assume, that some Christians in other churches agree with the portion of the statement I have underlined.

You also say that Mormonism denies. . ."every Christian doctrine." Are you sure about that? Do you think you may have waxed a tad hyperbolic?

 

[catsmate]

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



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).

Thank you.

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

Why did you only mention the wife/mother option?

 

[Cat Tale]

Janadele, unfortunately the link you provide is not working. In a moderated thread where editing is not possible, you need to work on this. Go to the page you're linking to, copy the URL directly from the browser, and then put it into the post.

Yes, she can also test it by clicking on "preview post" at the bottom, then right click on the link and open in another window and if it's done correctly it should open the link, otherwise she can go back and try again.

The statement you cite, though, is interesting, in that it fudges the idea of what is "not a sin." If you read the post carefully, it's clear that although the attraction is not quite a sin, it would be a sin not only to act on it but even to accept it. It's clear that to the person above, a person who adheres to Mormon teachings, but is comfortably gay, would be sinning in a way that differs substantially from, for example, a heterosexual person who adheres to Mormon teaching and refrains from premarital sex. To meet that writer's standards, it would be a sin even to say that one is gay.

I'd like to retract a portion of my previous post because I said I agreed with Janadele. I actually agree with the quote she referenced, but the rest was her own personal opinion, which I disagree with. Check the quotation marks the end marks are after "but acting on it is." I wanted to make sure of this so I went to Mormon Newsroom and found the article. This is an active link. The page is entitled "Getting it Right," and you have to scroll down a little. But the part about what "acting upon it is" is Janadele's opinion, and to me is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church.

Here's the honor code from BYU that shows very similar wording. The link asks for a username/password, I just clicked cancel 7 times and it gave me the site. Dunno if it'll always work, but...

Homosexual Behavior
Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or attraction and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards. Members of the university community can remain in good Honor Code standing if they conduct their lives in a manner consistent with gospel principles and the Honor Code.
One's stated same-gender attraction is not an Honor Code issue. However, the Honor Code requires all members of the university community to manifest a strict commitment to the law of chastity. Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings.

So in other words, BYU is treating homosexual behavior as a sin, but not the feelings or attraction. Under BYU Administration, Church Board of Education and BYU Board of Trustees, Thomas S. Monson is the Chairman.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[skyrider44]

Properly structured, administered, and interpreted, questionnaires are valuable research tools. They have been used extensively across a wide spectrum of disciplines.

I am claiming no such thing. A questionnaire is but one tool commonly used by researchers. Personal interviews, case histories, environment, education, aptitude tests, cultural background--these and many other indicators are considered.

 

[skyrider44]

Not really, skyrider.
We're in a moderated thread on the subject of the LDS.
If you're presenting a POV and want us to take it as an example of LDS doctrine, cite your sources and link to them, please.

The Proclamation is signed by the First Presidency of the Church. Nothing outside of scripture and revelations received by the prophet gets more authoritative than that.

 

[Janadele]

CAT: Mocking and pointing in scorn from the "large and spacious building" blurs and twists meanings to align with what you WANT the meaning to be. Clearly "Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them." does NOT mean the individual is born with such attraction.
All are surrounded and bombarded with attacks from Satan, how we choose to deal with them is the deciding factor. Inappropriate thoughts and feelings can be dismissed quickly, not pondered upon nor acted upon.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/these-things-i-know?lang=eng

"... when they brought before the Savior a woman taken in adultery, obviously guilty, He dismissed the case with five words: “Go, and sin no more.” That is the spirit of His ministry. Tolerance is a virtue, but like all virtues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the “tolerance trap” so that we are not swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequence that is the result of the violation of God’s law of chastity. All are born with the Light of Christ, a guiding influence which permits each person to recognize right from wrong. What we do with that light and how we respond to those promptings to live righteously is part of the test of mortality."

http://www.lds.org/ensign/print/1992/10/religious-values-and-public-policy?lang=eng&clang=eng

" ... there are in this life some absolutes, things that never change, regardless of time, place, or circumstances. They are Eternal truths, Eternal principles and, as Paul tells us, they are and will be the same yesterday, today, and forever.”

 

[skyrider44]

"[...]One question that I would ask all Mormons is this: "If I accept you as a Christian, will you accept me as a Mormon?"

Replace "Mormon" (underlined) with Baptist, or Catholic, or Lutheran, or Presbyterian, or Seventh-Day Adventist, or any other Christian denomination and the answer would be the same: "Yes, if you join our church and live by its principles."

What is your point?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm still curious about any scientific evidence that women are biologically provisioned to cook, clean and shop in ways that men are unable to do.

 

[skyrider44]

I'm still curious about any scientific evidence that women are biologically provisioned to cook, clean and shop in ways that men are unable to do.

You're not being fair, Foster, and I think you know it. What I said was that the skills you selectively list above are part of a whole set of skills/aptitudes women possess to a superior degree than do men. You cannot bring yourself to accept an established scientific fact: The brains of women are wired much differently than are the brains of men. (Earlier I posted university studies proving that is the case. Did you miss those?) The difference in wiring specifically equips women for their roles as mothers and nurturers.

I suspect the reason you cannot accept the dramatic difference between the brains of women and men (and the consequences therefrom) is because (as I have said before) it demolishes the myth that men can act their way into being what a real mother should be.

Do I need to post the research again?

 

[Cat Tale]

Huffington, gays and blacks

To think "social changes" would influence LDS Doctrine and Teachings is ludicrous, blasphemous and laughable, as is quoting from The Huffington Post as reference to LDS Doctrine and Teaching.

I guess you won't answer the question about what I quoted from the Huffington Post you found laughable. The funny thing is the changes that I quoted are all from LDS sources, I did not use the HP for documenting the Church activities.

The part about the Church officially endorsing gay rights in SLC, coming just shy of marriage, is from Mormon Newsroom. All the rest is either from Mormon Newsroom or mormonsandgays (or both). So if you think I'm referencing LDS Doctrine and Teachings from the Huffington Post, I'm not. I'm using official LDS sites, for that. The fact is, the Church has made all those changes since Prop 8, that is undeniably a fact. All my sources in my original post 1070 are linked to the original source.

As far as what I said about the Race and the Priesthood, that was right off lds.org they didn't seem to have any problem admitting that there was a plea to God under social changes, so why should we? Scroll down to the part entitled "Removing the Restriction," and you'll see they talk about the Civil Rights, growth of the Church, Brazil, conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 60s and 70s. I mean, that all looks like they're saying the social movement moved the Presidency to ask God, and this time God softened His heart.

So I'm still lost as to why you think my post was "ludicrous, blasphemous and laughable." Would you please explain in more detail what I have wrong? Cause I'm not seeing it, and would like to.