LDS II: The Mormons

[bruto]

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.



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...



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.

Well well well. That explains a lot. Thank you Cat Tale, for clarifying that, which I quite obviously missed.

I cannot say I agree with LDS doctrine of course, but at least it is not woefully inconsistent and impossible. Jadadele's addition, despite pretending otherwise, makes homosexuality a sin insofar as one accepts it at all, even if one agrees with LDS morality and abstains from acting on it forever. Even to wish things were different would be a sin. Clearly LDS doctrine says it's a sin, for example, to make love to your fiancé a day before the wedding, but only a blatant idiot would suggest it's a sin to wish for the wedding to happen.

It also renders a bit superflous my challenge to Skyrider44. Whatever disagreements we have (many and deep though they are) he has made it pretty plain that he adheres to official LDS doctrine and obviously need not answer for Janadele's unless he feels like it.

 

[pakeha]

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:


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.

I was researching the subject of the Mormons' claim to be considered Christians and that site I quoted was one of the hits.
I don't necesarily agree with the conclusions of the writer and it was probably a bad idea to have quoted it.

I wasn't aware before yesterday that Mormons considered themselves Christians and, to tell the truth such a claim makes no difference to the fundamentally deluded insistence in claiming the BoM and the BoA are other than texts dreamed up by Smith.

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?

Not really.
Didn't you catch on to the fact the text is a quotation from another writer and attributed to them with a link?

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

Possibly, but not for determining biological destiny.

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.

So, no link, no quotation, then?

 

[Cat Tale]

After thought.

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.

Goes both ways though. FWIW, you seem to think that I'm in favor of same-sex marriage in the Church, and I have repeatedly said I am not. I have never said how I feel about homosexual acts, though being a LDS that should be obvious, yes, it is a sin.

I'm not talking eternal truths changing. Polygamy is an eternal truth, but social pressure has removed it from the earth. It is something that LDS believe always existed, and will always exist in God's kingdom. So while eternal truths haven't changed, at least one has been lifted from the earth. Therefore Church doctrine has changed due to social pressure, though the eternal truth has not changed it was just taken away, if that makes sense.

What I'm talking about in my posts however, isn't the Church changing to accept same-sex marriage, but the Church is reaching out to the homosexual community more now than it has in the past, and is granting them more rights. The question that's been repeatedly asked here is:

Why should those who are not Christian (LDS, etc.) be forced to abide by Christian standards? Personally, I think this is an excellent question, and to the best of my knowledge no LDS has offered an opinion on this. Personally, as an American, I like the fact that there is a separation of church and state, it works well to protect everyone's rights as citizens of this great country, including LDS.

 

[Shalamar]

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.”

None of the above says anything about Homosexuality. Neither do they make the claim that such thoughts come from Satan, a being apparently more powerful than your god.

 

[skyrider44]

Didn't you catch on to the fact the text is a quotation from another writer and attributed to them with a link?

But you posted it. Do you now wish to disown it?

Possibly, but not for determining biological destiny.

Read the research I posted. You cannot credibly refute it.

So, no link, no quotation, then?

As I said in my post, simply enter the words "LDS Proclamation to the World" into your search engine. Presto! The Proclamation appears. I know you can do that.

 

[Craig4]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no reason to be "new and improved" nor will it ever change Eternal Law.
Mere mortals do not dictate to God!!! 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 Teachings.

Teaching by influence or example is the most powerful of all teachings. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-matt/5?lang=eng JST, Matthew 5:21. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments,and shall teach men so to do, he shall in no wise be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven; Compare Matthew 5:19

So I guess blacks can't be bishops and you can still have multiple wives.

 

[joobz]

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?

Not again. You need to actually link to research that says EXACTLY as you claim.

Showing studies that men and women are different is not sufficient. No one says men and women are not the same.
It is your assumption that these differences make women better at cooking cleaning etc.

 

[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."

[No longer part of the article, but included in Janadele's post] 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.

Actually, I just found this last night in the current LDS Church handbook, and the 2006 Handbook from this site (unfortunately, I can't find the book online). Now I admit that the lady who put together the website with the 2006 handbook quote is a former member of the Church who left over womens' rights and gay rights, but the way I got to it was from an LDS forum where they were discussing the information contained on the site, and no one disputed the original 2006 handbook said what is claimed. I do like the first response to the OP on that forum, it sums the whole thing up pretty well.

It's interesting to see what was dropped from the '06 Handbook. I struck out the things that have been dropped.

“Homosexual Behavior. If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.

Compare that to the current Church Handbook

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

There are other paragraphs in the above link at lds.org but this one is the one that actually proves my point without doubt. If anyone wishes to see what I've left out they can go to the link provided.

These are the things I've been arguing all along, but only now found the Church Handbook online, the Handbook is considered official doctrine of the Church.

 

[pakeha]

But you posted it. Do you now wish to disown it?



Read the research I posted. You cannot credibly refute it.



As I said in my post, simply enter the words "LDS Proclamation to the World" into your search engine. Presto! The Proclamation appears. I know you can do that.

I'm amused by how you refuse to admit your own confusion about what you read, skyrider44.

I read the research.
It's an opinion poll.

So, no links to back up your claim biological destiny forms part of the LDS doctrine?

 

[skyrider44]

Not again. You need to actually link to research that says EXACTLY as you claim.

I didn't settle for a link; I posted--in text--the key portion of the actual research. I also listed the source.

 

[joobz]

I didn't settle for a link; I posted--in text--the key portion of the actual research. I also listed the source.

I wasn't challenging whether you linked to the article or posted the text.
MY CHALLENGE is that what you referenced doesn't support your position. It can, at best, support the claim that men and women are different. It DOES NOT support the argument that women are genetically predetermined to be better at 1950s stereotypical housewife duties than men. That is nonsense.

Further, what your survey suggests is that while men and women are different there is ~20% overlap in the responses. This suggests that there ARE women who are more "man like" and men who ARE more "woman like". (I use "" to indicate the use you are applying to these concepts).

To extend this conversation back to Mormonism, I would suggest that the gender roles you describe were likely more meaningful at a time when society needed such stratification of duties. Now that society has an infrastructure to support varied roles of family members, it would only make sense for Mormon values to change with the infrastructure.

Afterall, I am certain that in the Mormon faith, all are viewed as equal. Wouldn't that suggest then that societies which support greater equality would be more in line with Mormon teaching?

 

[Craig4]

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.

You don't get how monumentally huge your problem is. Smith was the lowest of perverts even adjusting for the morality of the time. The less said about Brigham Young's sexual appetites the better. Yo need to come up with something better than "it's all Satanic lies" before you start talking about the morality of anyone's sexuality. Can you even begin to appreciate how absurd moralization about sexuality sounds coming from a Mormon?

I don't want to hear about eternal laws, pre mortal existence or satanic lies. With you founder's deeply troubling sexual history, tell me why anyone should take a Mormon seriously on this topic.

 

[halleyscomet]

I trust that the following will be enlightening.

... cut for relevance ...

That was not enlightening in the least. I will concede that most members of your pagan sect call themselves "Christian" but using the term does not make it so. I was also already familiar with the rationalizations presented in the quote. None of them were compelling.

So, it's your position that Peter, Paul, and the other apostles who were followers of Christ were pagans.

Nope, not even close. Now I see why you persist in the fantasy that Mormons are Christians and not pagans. You don't actually understand WHY most Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christian. It's a theological Dunning–Kruger effect.

There are a lot of reasons why Mormons are not Pagans. I'm not going to delve into an exhaustive list or go into much detail. To start, you're not monotheists, not even by the definition of "monotheist" required by the trinity. You believe that "god" is actually a Mormon who was a really good Mormon on another planet, and was rewarded with his own planet.

Oh, sorry, "world." It's a silly, pedantic "distinction" but a few folks here seem to consider it important.

Anyway, that planet / world / parallel dimension / whatever was in turn ruled by another God who got his gig the same way. What you really believe in is a pantheon. Like the Romans and Greeks, you have your preferred deity that you worship, but ultimately your vision of "god" is just one of innumerable virtually identical beings who happens to be our local constable.

More to the point, your "god" is not the one making the rules, but a subject to rules made by someone else. The being YOUR God worships as God in turn isn't in charge. You worship a lowly manager, running one planet out of zillions, the cosmic equivalent of the head manager at the local McDonalds. Sure the STAFF at that fast food joint has to care what the manager says, but no one else does, or really has a reason to.

Then there's the fact that you don't believe in the trinity. Again, some lip service is given to a trinity, but such placating words are at odds with your cosmology. Satan is as much a part of "god" as Jesus, as they are brothers, born from your "god" and one of his cosmic wives.

Refresh my memory, do Jesus and Satan have the same mother?

Your actual religion has more in common with Roman or Hindu ideas of a pantheon than any actual Christian denomination.

 

[Loss Leader]

Once again, please let me remind people that this thread is for the discussion of issues related to Mormonism. The secular discussion about the biology of men and women (and how it might relate to parenting) is off-topic for this thread. Off-topic posts will not be approved. You will be wasting your time composing any. Thank you.

- Loss Leader
Moderating Team

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[Slowvehicle]

skyrider44:

You may have missed a post. If the moderators will allow, I will simply link to it, to avoid seeming to be spamming the thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9825725#post9825725

 

[Pup]

You don't actually understand WHY most Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christian.

Many Christians are apparently not as bothered by those distinction as you are.

Earlier, I posted 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.

What evidence do you have that that poll is inaccurate?

 

[Craig B]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no reason to be "new and improved" nor will it ever change Eternal Law.

Mmm. That certainly doesn't apply to the ?Book of Mormon, perhaps the most frequently changed book in the history of books inspired by urn changing omniscient deities. Nearly 4,000 amendments from 1830 to 1964 ... And counting. http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm

 

[skyrider44]

You don't get how monumentally huge your problem is. Smith was the lowest of perverts even adjusting for the morality of the time.

Let's see the documentation--not from rabid anti-LDS sources but from reasonably objective written accounts.

 

[Craig4]

Let's see the documentation--not from rabid anti-LDS sources but from reasonably objective written accounts.

Well, you could read Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt's account of Smith's use of an abortionist to deal with the pregnancies. These are corroborated by the abortionist himself, a doctor John Cook Bennett. You could look at the ages if some of his wives, some of which were between 14 and 16. His own first counselor, William Law reported that Smith was very free and open about the sexual conquests of girls.

It's amusing that you don't want any if this from anti Mormon sources. How many source do you think are out there that have this information and aren't anti Mormon? Perhaps you should consider that the truth is more than ample reason to be anti Mormon.

 

[halleyscomet]

Many Christians are apparently not as bothered by those distinction as you are.

Earlier, I posted 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.

What evidence do you have that that poll is inaccurate?

I have no reason to believe the poll is inaccurate. Less than the third of Christians being aware of the issues involved is perfectly consistent with the poor overall religious knowledge demonstrated by most Christians.

Remember, this is a religion that is so ill informed about the teachings of Christ that the prosperity gospel screechers get a foothold.