LDS II: The Mormons

[Slowvehicle]

I am guessing here, that Slowvehicle is speaking loosely, perhaps using idioms not so usual to everyone, and referring to the Christian Canon rather than to some odd variant of Christianity that has hijacked the name "Xtianism." The term "Christianist" has a long history, though its usual current connotation is rather derogatory and implies the use of Christianity as a political weapon. Substituting X for "Christ" in such words is, while bothersome to some, a custom with a long history among both the devout and the faithless.

It is the case that what is usually called the Christian Canon does not inlcude the Mormon scriptures, and it may be that Slowvehicle is remarking that some conflict appears between the Mormon scriptures and other works considered canonical.

Of course, I also suspect that you know this, and are using presumed confusion and feigned literalism as an arguing point to deflect attention from the possibility that Slowvehicle has said something of substance, but ignoring that possibility, and assuming that there is simply a linguistic problem here, I suggest you search instead for the Christian Canon, which will result in lists of the Biblical and Apocryphal works that various religions consider canonical.

As no Christians other than Mormons accept the Mormon canon, this subset is generally either not considered as part of the group, or is appended as a separate subject.

Wikipedia's Canonical book list

Thank you, Bruto. That was well said.

I might make one relatively small request: that you consider a different term than "faithless" to refer to those who do not beleive in 'god', in a 'god', nor in any 'gods'.

I object to the term, "faithless", for at least two reasons:

First, it carries an inherently pejorative connotation, even when posters such as yourself use it in good will (see the definition from RHWUD2, above).

Second, it is, at least in my case, and the cases of others in my experince, inaccurate. There are many things about which I am faithful--I keep promises, I adhere to principles; there are, in fact, causes to which I would dedicate my "life, fortune and honour". It is just that none of those causes, none of those things about which I keep faith, have anything to do with 'god', with a 'god', with anyone's 'god', nor with any 'gods'.

As for an alternative term, there are many: "atheist" works, as does "godless" (which, while intended as a pejorative, is, at least, accurate).

Laying that aside, I offer you thanks, again, for your take on what I have been saying.

If you ever find yourself in the NM High Desert, first round's on me.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I think you may have a different copy of the Old Testament than I do. Mine doesn't mention anybody named Jesus Christ. In fact, it hardly mentions a messiah at all. In the entire Torah, there is one verse that says God will raise up a "prophet" from among the Jewish people. Then, of course, we have about a dozen recognized prophets long before Jesus, any of whom could have been the person spoken about in Deuteronomy.

From an Old Testament perspective, Jesus cannot be viewed as a god. God is pretty specific, "“You shall have no other gods before me." Elevating a person to the status of a god is in direct violation of his law.

This just reinforces the point that the person who gets to interpret the bible, gets to win all the arguments. Your belief that you have the one, true interpretation of the bible is nice and neat for you. It gives you direction, meaning and comfort, I hope. However, you should at least acknowledge that there are other points of view and that, from any perspective other than Mormonism, a Mormon interpretation of the bible appears wrong.

As you consider me an apostate, I consider you the same way. The only difference is, I don't care what you believe. I'll never try to convince you that you are wrong or get you to come over to my side. Your relationship with God is your business. Why should my relationship with God be your business, too?

As Craig B recently observed in another thread, when the Jews heard Jesus referred to as "son of God", they thought of David and Solomon. When pagans heard Jesus called "son of God", they though to Hercules and Alexander.

The idea that Jesus is God himself arose gradually among the followers of Christianity. It's hard to say which would have incensed a 1st Century apocalyptic Jewish rabbi more, the supremely blasphemous claim by future generations that he was God, or the idea that this heretical belief would become the centerpiece of the official religion of the Roman Empire that he hated so deeply.

 

[skyrider44]

. Wrote nothing.

You're apparently unaware of The Joseph Smith Papers Project, which will consist of about 20 volumes when completed. As of Oct. 1, 2009, over 48,000 copies of Vol. 1 had been sold. The second volume went on sale Sept. 2, 2009, with an additional 11,000 ordered by bookstores. Within two weeks of its publication, 6,100 copies of Vol. 2 had been sold.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joseph_Smith_Papers

 

[pakeha]

.
Wrote nothing.

You're apparently unaware of The Joseph Smith Papers Project, which will consist of about 20 volumes when completed. As of Oct. 1, 2009, over 48,000 copies of Vol. 1 had been sold. The second volume went on sale Sept. 2, 2009, with an additional 11,000 ordered by bookstores. Within two weeks of its publication, 6,100 copies of Vol. 2 had been sold.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joseph_Smith_Papers

What do the sales of the up-coming publication Joseph Smith Papers Project have to do with the fact that Jesus wrote nothing?
It looks as though you deliberately mis-quoted I Ratant.
Here's their original post

.
Wrote nothing. Any words attributed to him are just the recollections of those who knew him... and there appears to be nothing from those people either, the NT was written by second-generation hearsayers.
The OT is just a collection of tribal myth, mostly illuminating a very sadistic and inept "creator".

 

[Janadele]

Friends of all faiths promote religious freedom: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...gn=Feed:+LDSNewsRoomTop15+(RSS:+LDS+Newsroom)
"Evangelist and author Dr. Ravi Zacharias addressed the topics of faith, family and freedom in a gathering at the Tabernacle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Temple Square on Saturday, 18 January 2014...
This is the second time Zacharias has spoken in the Tabernacle and his third visit to Utah since 1994. Zacharias is founder and president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, with offices in Canada, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates and Hong Kong. The event was presented by Standing Together, a network of evangelical congregations in Utah, and hosted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to promote religious freedom. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles greeted the large audience of religious leaders and “friends of all faiths” in the historic Tabernacle, which has been the setting of worship and inspiring music for 150 years. “World leaders and men and women of many faiths have spoken here, including Dr. Zacharias in 2004,” said Elder Holland. “We’re very, very happy to have him back. I say that, in part, to assure many who may be wondering whether tonight’s gathering of evangelicals and Latter-day Saints under the same roof is being interpreted as clear evidence that the apocalypse is upon us,” he quipped. “Who knows, it may be.”

 

[Foster Zygote]

You're apparently unaware of The Joseph Smith Papers Project, which will consist of about 20 volumes when completed. As of Oct. 1, 2009, over 48,000 copies of Vol. 1 had been sold. The second volume went on sale Sept. 2, 2009, with an additional 11,000 ordered by bookstores. Within two weeks of its publication, 6,100 copies of Vol. 2 had been sold.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joseph_Smith_Papers

What has that got to do with anything that Jesus didn't write?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You're apparently unaware of The Joseph Smith Papers Project, which will consist of about 20 volumes when completed. As of Oct. 1, 2009, over 48,000 copies of Vol. 1 had been sold. The second volume went on sale Sept. 2, 2009, with an additional 11,000 ordered by bookstores. Within two weeks of its publication, 6,100 copies of Vol. 2 had been sold.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joseph_Smith_Papers

From your link:

The Joseph Smith Papers (or Joseph Smith Papers Project) is a project researching, collecting, and publishing all manuscripts and documents created by, or under the direction of, Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement.

(emphases added)

How is your link a response to I Ratant's correct observation that

...Any words attributed to [Jesus] are just the recollections of those who knew him... and there appears to be nothing from those people either, the NT was written by second-generation hearsayers.

?

 

[bruto]

You're apparently unaware of The Joseph Smith Papers Project, which will consist of about 20 volumes when completed. As of Oct. 1, 2009, over 48,000 copies of Vol. 1 had been sold. The second volume went on sale Sept. 2, 2009, with an additional 11,000 ordered by bookstores. Within two weeks of its publication, 6,100 copies of Vol. 2 had been sold.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joseph_Smith_Papers

Reading too quickly perhaps? Nobody disputes that Joseph Smith wrote a great deal. I Ratant's comment was that Jesus wrote nothing. This is a pretty obvious observation even if you believe, as some do, that he revealed, inspired, and even dictated what others wrote.

 

[I Ratant]

You're apparently unaware of The Joseph Smith Papers Project, which will consist of about 20 volumes when completed. As of Oct. 1, 2009, over 48,000 copies of Vol. 1 had been sold. The second volume went on sale Sept. 2, 2009, with an additional 11,000 ordered by bookstores. Within two weeks of its publication, 6,100 copies of Vol. 2 had been sold.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joseph_Smith_Papers

.
JC wrote nothing.
JS wrote who knows how much, but also about nothing.

 

[Janadele]

Another Temple opening: Fort Lauderdale will soon be open to the public previous to dedication.
The Gilbert Temple is at present open to the public, but not for long... dedication approaches.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...ple-open-house-and-dedication-dates-announced

"While the Church’s 18,000-plus meetinghouses are open to all people who wish to attend religious services, Temples are open only to faithful Latter-day Saints after they are formally dedicated... The Fort Lauderdale Temple will be the 143rd operating temple of the Church worldwide."

 

[Travis]

So, are we at least accepting now that Mormonism is a Christian faith and that it isn't intolerable for a Mormon to call themselves a Christian?

 

[Cat Tale]

Zacharias is founder and president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, with offices in Canada, India, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates and Hong Kong.

What importance do you see with Ravi Zacharias speaking at the Tabernacle? I'm curious cause obviously I have my own thoughts.

 

[arthwollipot]

Friends of all faiths promote religious freedom...

All faiths? There are rather a large number of faiths that are not represented here.

 

[joobz]

Considering the length of this LDS thread including this continuance of the original, it has again become necessary to define the core and central role Jesus Christ occupies in LDS Doctrine: http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/his-life-and-teachings

"Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the God of Adam and of Noah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God at whose instance the Prophets of the ages have spoken, the God of all nations, and He who shall yet reign on earth as King of kings and Lord of lords... Firstborn Son of God in the primeval councils of Heaven, at the time when He was chosen and ordained to be the Saviour of the unborn race of mortals, the Redeemer of a world then in its formative stages of development... the Creator of the world, the Word of Power, through whom the purposes of the Eternal Father were realized in the preparation of the earth for the abode of His myriad spirit-children during the appointed period of their mortal probation.
Among the specific teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respecting the Christ are these:
(1) The unity and continuity of His mission in all ages--this of necessity involving the verity of His preexistence and foreordination.
(2) The fact of His antemortal Godship.
(3) The actuality of His birth in the flesh as the natural issue of divine and mortal parentage.
(4) The reality of His death and physical resurrection, as a result of which the power of death shall be eventually overcome. (5) The literalness of the atonement wrought by Him, including the absolute requirement of individual compliance with the laws and ordinances of His Gospel as the means by which salvation may be attained.
(6) The restoration of His Priesthood and the reestablishment of His Church in the current age, which is verily the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times.
(7) The certainty of His return to earth in the near future, with power and great glory, to reign in Person and bodily presence as Lord and King." James E. Talmage, Apostle.

Given all of the inconsistent, contradictory religious views and beliefs that have been ascribed to Jesus, you would think that he would have come back by know clarifying who is correct.

Why would a god-man not come back and better explain his position?...
unless of course he/she wasn't actually god to begin with?

 

[desertgal]

Another Temple opening: Fort Lauderdale will soon be open to the public previous to dedication.
The Gilbert Temple is at present open to the public, but not for long... dedication approaches.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...ple-open-house-and-dedication-dates-announced

"While the Church’s 18,000-plus meetinghouses are open to all people who wish to attend religious services, Temples are open only to faithful Latter-day Saints after they are formally dedicated... The Fort Lauderdale Temple will be the 143rd operating temple of the Church worldwide."

Uh...so? How is the opening of another temple relevant to the discussion of the doctrine, teachings, and fraudulent founding of the Mormon church? Or are you simply trying to show that, once again, the Mormon church COULD donate a substantial amount of proceeds to charities worldwide, yet fails to do so in favor of building yet another ridiculously over-opulent, overpriced temple?

Jesus prayed and spoke on the ground where he stood. He didn't need a golden tabernacle to hide in.

 

[skyrider44]

What has that got to do with anything that Jesus didn't write?

You and others who have made the same observation are correct. My error.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm going to repeat a question I asked in another thread, to no avail. Perhaps it was better suited for the religious discussion.



Skyrider,

Janandele,

Can either of you point me towards anything in scripture that makes reference to government recognition of same-sex marriage, or any other marriage?

 

[bruto]

There is some cross over between this thread and the one on gay marriage, and it can be difficult to figure out which thread should get which thoughts, but I'll post it here, even though the specific issue which gives rise to the question is that of the LDS Church's stand on gay rights.

Janadele has asserted quite vigorously that there will never be a change in the Church's stand on this issue, but has acknowledged that there is such a thing as change in how truths are interpreted, and changes in church policy as a result.

I have asked the question but given that it might not have been in the right place, I repeat it here.

I am still interested in the theoretical result if the LDS Church should, surprisingly, change its position on gay rights. There are three Mormons arguing on these threads, and my impression is that two of them, Cat Tale and Skyrider44, would accept Mormon doctrine, though perhaps with different degrees of happiness, because they are Mormons.

I know this is a really hard, and really theoretical question, but I wonder, Janadele, if you can answer it, purely theoretically? If the LDS Church came up with a surprising and unexpected change in doctrine, would you accept it and reevaluate your beliefs, or would you reevaluate your church?

As I say, this is a really hard question, and I don't know whether it's possible for everyone to answer it honestly, but it interests me in a general and abstract way. If your church came up with what you might consider a shocking change of doctrine, would your loyalty to that church survive it?

 

[gabeygoat]

Temples are open only to faithful Latter-day Saints after they are formally dedicated...

Why's that?

 

[Cat Tale]

Bullying Gays...

Janadele, skyrider, ABC10, edge, et al:
Two and a half years ago I attended the funeral of a 14-year-old boy who hung himself because of people like you. Because of PEOPLE. LIKE. YOU. His “repugnant, disgusting” blood, and that of the many like him, drips from your very souls. You should hang your heads in shame.

There are many reasons why someone will take their own life. Your accusations of blindly blaming anyone who disagrees with your sad philosophy is beyond the pale.

The Spirit knows when the precious body it has been given, transgressors the reasons for mortality, defiling God given powers of creation, choosing instead depravity and denying and cutting itself off from what is good. Extreme misery for a pure Spiritual entity.

Let the blame, if there is to be blame, rest with those who ENCOURAGE the vulnerable to think and act against who they really are, a child of God not of Lucifer. As a man thinketh so is he, is a wise and telling statement.

For the record, blaming the victim is NOT LDS doctrine or teachings. In fact, here is a statement by the LDS Church following the death of several young gays who were bullied. The following are a few key paragraphs, but the link takes one to both the video of the statement, as well as the transcript beneath the video.

While we disagree with the Human Rights Campaign on many fundamentals, we also share some common ground. This past week we have all witnessed tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men. We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.

As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down. [my emphasis added]

...The Church distinguishes between feelings or inclinations on the one hand and behavior on the other. It’s not a sin to have feelings, only in yielding to temptation.