What do Mormons Believe?

[DOC]

Zygar could address this much better than I, but I think you are incorrect about rank-and-file Mormons not knowing about that particular doctrine.

One of their oft-repeated phrases is something like "As we are, God once was. As God is, we can become."

And I think it is mentioned fairly directily in some of their hymns as well."

Well thanks for the info. If that is true than Mormonism is even more different from mainline Christianity (Catholics and Protestants) than I thought. I'm of the belief that the farther away from the Truth your beliefs are the less happy you will be in the long run. And that goes for entire cultures also.

 

[Hokulele]

Well thanks for the info. If that is true than Mormonism is even more different from mainline Christianity (Catholics and Protestants) than I thought. I'm of the belief that the farther away from the Truth your beliefs are the less happy you will be in the long run. And that goes for entire cultures also.

In that case, you would seriously not enjoy Maui. We probably have the lowest percentage of active christians in the U.S. Our representative to the U.S. congress is a Buddhist. Judging by your statement, we must all be miserable all of the time. Seriously, stay away from Maui, your happiness requires it.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Well thanks for the info. If that is true than Mormonism is even more different from mainline Christianity (Catholics and Protestants) than I thought. I'm of the belief that the farther away from the Truth your beliefs are the less happy you will be in the long run. And that goes for entire cultures also.

Wow, that must make the Vatican like the happiest place on earth. Its too bad for all those places where Christianity is in the minority (but prisons are safe and happy.)

 

[Zygar]

So you are suggesting Llama pulled chariots? Where there even Llama's in the area that this supposedly happened?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Make a cohesive statement about what you think I am saying, and I will respond.

This is my point, even actual conflicting evidence would mean nothing, as it has not in the past.

There isn't any compelling conflicting evidence. There is lack of evidence. Unfortunately, a believer isn't going to change his/her mind unless there is something compelling.

 

[Kopji]

I am a little curious about the 'mainstream' line of thinking. A similar argument could be made that Jesus would have lived a longer and happier life if he followed a more mainstream version of Judaism.

 

[Zygar]

The Mormon concept of God is very different from mainline Christianity. But I believe that the majority of Mormons don't realize this. Mormon Church doctrine teaches that God lives in "human form" on another planet and at one time was just a regular human like you and me who evolved into God over time.

Evolved is the wrong word. According to the Mormons, he became our God as a result of specific actions in a fairly well stated progression.

As I said, I do not believe this is explained to the rank and file Mormons. My understanding is that there are degrees of knowledge in the Mormon church somewhat like Freemasonry.

That is quite false. The Mormon religion doesn't exactly keep things hidden from its membership. The average understanding of the gospel by the average Mormon is quite high, as Christian religious groups go.

This concept of the nature of God is extremely different (and I believe false) from mainline Christianity where God (The Father) is Spirit and not in human form. This is not to say that the Mormons don't do good work or believe in the teachings of Jesus but I (being a Christian) believe they only possess a "partial" truth about the nature of God (the Father) and Christ. While a partial knowledge is better than none, I don't believe they can experience the true essence and power of Christianity that is available to the more mainline Christian denominations.

This is kind of true, but not entirely. The Mormons are not unique in anthropomorphizing God. Infact, I've read that this was a primary point of debate during the First Council of Nicaea. The idea of a physical god does exist in the Protestant world.

 

[Zygar]

Zygar, aren't you supposed to be dead?

Hi Kopji! I haven't had much time for the forum, as of late, so I didn't keep up with that thread. I appear to be alive and well.

 

[DOC]

Quote from DOC:

As I said, I do not believe this is explained to the rank and file Mormons. My understanding is that there are degrees of knowledge in the Mormon church somewhat like Freemasonry.

.That is quite false. The Mormon religion doesn't exactly keep things hidden from its membership. The average understanding of the gospel by the average Mormon is quite high, as Christian religious groups go.

Wouldn't you agree that the average Mormon high school student does not know that it is Mormon theology that God lives on another planet in human form. Also I have heard that it is Mormon theology that God's body is flesh and bone but does not have human like blood. Would you say that is correct.

 

[neon]

What gets me most about Mormon theology is that they claim all these things happened in ancient times with the Indians...but the Indians themselves never seemed to realize that! Where is any of this stuff in their own folklore?

 

[neon]

I could come up with a better story than Joseph Smith. I think I'll call it the book of Moron.

I can't believe Joseph Smith never thought people would think about that and make jokes.

 

[Zygar]

Wouldn't you agree that the average Mormon high school student does not know that it is Mormon theology that God lives on another planet in human form.

No. Since the Mormons do not put a preacher in front of the congregation, but instead uses members of the congregation to teach eachother, it is a very community learning experience. No portions of the doctrine are hidden from the "rank and file" because there really is no such things. However, there are a few things that are kept for inside the temple. Given that most LDS membership attends the temple ceremonies early in their twenties, few Mormons are missing any of the available information.

Also I have heard that it is Mormon theology that God's body is flesh and bone but does not have human like blood. Would you say that is correct.

Yes. Supposedly human blood has something to do with mortality.

 

[Zygar]

What gets me most about Mormon theology is that they claim all these things happened in ancient times with the Indians...but the Indians themselves never seemed to realize that! Where is any of this stuff in their own folklore?

Given that most of this is *not* claimed to have happened to the majority of the Native American tribes, it is not going to be prevalent in their culture even if the Mormons are right.

That said, the Mormons find correlations in a few stories. Their favorite is the story of Queztlcoatl, who Cortez was apparently mistaken for because of his light skin. I have never been able to find solid validation of this, but the claim is that a light-skinned person who was a form of Queztlcoatl came to the people of that region in ancient times, and that that person was destined to return. This story is often correlated to the story of Jesus in the BoM.

 

[Zygar]

I can't believe Joseph Smith never thought people would think about that and make jokes.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Given that most of this is *not* claimed to have happened to the majority of the Native American tribes, it is not going to be prevalent in their culture even if the Mormons are right.

That said, the Mormons find correlations in a few stories. Their favorite is the story of Queztlcoatl, who Cortez was apparently mistaken for because of his light skin. I have never been able to find solid validation of this, but the claim is that a light-skinned person who was a form of Queztlcoatl came to the people of that region in ancient times, and that that person was destined to return. This story is often correlated to the story of Jesus in the BoM.

The light skin thing has been linked by some to Cortez, and appears that it may have been historical based more on the Mesoamerican calender than his skin tone though.

As for the Native American thing, there was an article http://help4rlds.com/LATimes-BedrockofaFaithIsJolted.htm where some Native American Mormons claimed they were lied to etc. Atleast some were upset it seems.

Also, according to Wiki an introductory paragraph to the 1981 version of the BOM read

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Make a cohesive statement about what you think I am saying, and I will respond.

Are people claiming that Llama's pulled chariots?

There isn't any compelling conflicting evidence. There is lack of evidence. Unfortunately, a believer isn't going to change his/her mind unless there is something compelling.

This is where I don't agree. A compelling lack of evidence is just as convincing as positive evidence. Hard evidence would not change the situation, look at all the biblical creation literalists, compelling conflicting evidence is not hurting them much.

 

[Zygar]

The light skin thing has been linked by some to Cortez, and appears that it may have been historical based more on the Mesoamerican calender than his skin tone though.

Like I said, I had no supporting data on that claim. Just hearsay.

As for the Native American thing, there was an article http://help4rlds.com/LATimes-BedrockofaFaithIsJolted.htm where some Native American Mormons claimed they were lied to etc. Atleast some were upset it seems.

Yes, I agree with much of what they say in that article. The problem I have is that I was debating the falsifiability of the claim through genetics 10 years ago, since there is plenty of room in the BoM for Native Americans not to be genetic descendents of Laman and Lemuel.

Also, according to Wiki an introductory paragraph to the 1981 version of the BOM read

Yes, I have seen that as well. The standard stance of the church has always been that the Native Americans are descended from the Lamanites. That does not mean it is supported by the BoM.

Let me at this point put forth my opinion on the LDS church. This is my opinion. I am not presenting facts or arguments:

The LDS Church has two things as it's foundation. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and The Book of Mormon is a true account. If you prove beyond a doubt that either is false, then you will break the foundation of the religion as it stands today, and the membership will fall off. Disproving them is not a matter of shooting little annoying holes in the stories, since all stories have little annoying holes. You cannot break the foundation with absence of evidence. The average membership will, however, respond to compelling contrary evidence.

Having stated that, I agree that the genetics argument is important to the debate. But I believe that LDS Church has weaseled out of things by changing their stance without having to change the BoM. As long as they can do that, they will not have any trouble with such evidence.

For example, polygamy was not directed by the BoM. Therefore, it was easy to remove. The earlier rule about blacks holding the priesthood was similarly not directed by the BoM, so was again relatively easy to change. Shoot holes in the BoM directly, not in the way it has been interpreted.

 

[Zygar]

Are people claiming that Llama's pulled chariots?

Not to my knowledge. But I swear that they are capable of pulling a cart. I'm not sure why you are asking this.

This is where I don't agree. A compelling lack of evidence is just as convincing as positive evidence. Hard evidence would not change the situation, look at all the biblical creation literalists, compelling conflicting evidence is not hurting them much.

You contradict yourself in that statement. Bible creation literalists are not a good example. The average Mormon is well educated, and will respond to contrary evidence. But you are missing something important. These people, as a rule, have been raised with the idea that the BoM is true. They are not going to give that up in the face of a complete lack of evidence either way. If they were, they'd have done so generations ago.

 

[ponderingturtle]

For example, polygamy was not directed by the BoM. Therefore, it was easy to remove. The earlier rule about blacks holding the priesthood was similarly not directed by the BoM, so was again relatively easy to change. Shoot holes in the BoM directly, not in the way it has been interpreted.

And holes have been, regarding the bronze swords and existance of horses. They just have cop out answers.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not to my knowledge. But I swear that they are capable of pulling a cart. I'm not sure why you are asking this.

Because it is a piece of technology that is totally lacking in the area, and an animal not suited for pulling multiple people on a chariot. Chariots are not militarily useful if all they have is a driver, and to get Llama's to pull one you would need a lot of Llama's. And then having a large group of Llama's you are getting into the situation where a dog sled is also very much not like a chariot.

You contradict yourself in that statement. Bible creation literalists are not a good example. The average Mormon is well educated, and will respond to contrary evidence. But you are missing something important. These people, as a rule, have been raised with the idea that the BoM is true. They are not going to give that up in the face of a complete lack of evidence either way. If they were, they'd have done so generations ago.

So Mormons would to use a different example not be convinced by a faith healers complete lack of demonstrable effect, they would need to see actual harm done?

The inappropriateness of the technology and animals described is positive evidence against it. Smith did not know that horses where not native to the America's when he wrote it, so he messed up.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Like I said, I had no supporting data on that claim. Just hearsay.

Yes, I agree with much of what they say in that article. The problem I have is that I was debating the falsifiability of the claim through genetics 10 years ago, since there is plenty of room in the BoM for Native Americans not to be genetic descendents of Laman and Lemuel.

Yes, I have seen that as well. The standard stance of the church has always been that the Native Americans are descended from the Lamanites. That does not mean it is supported by the BoM.

Let me at this point put forth my opinion on the LDS church. This is my opinion. I am not presenting facts or arguments:

The LDS Church has two things as it's foundation. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and The Book of Mormon is a true account. If you prove beyond a doubt that either is false, then you will break the foundation of the religion as it stands today, and the membership will fall off. Disproving them is not a matter of shooting little annoying holes in the stories, since all stories have little annoying holes. You cannot break the foundation with absence of evidence. The average membership will, however, respond to compelling contrary evidence.

Having stated that, I agree that the genetics argument is important to the debate. But I believe that LDS Church has weaseled out of things by changing their stance without having to change the BoM. As long as they can do that, they will not have any trouble with such evidence.

For example, polygamy was not directed by the BoM. Therefore, it was easy to remove. The earlier rule about blacks holding the priesthood was similarly not directed by the BoM, so was again relatively easy to change. Shoot holes in the BoM directly, not in the way it has been interpreted.

I was not seaking to argue with you, just brining up some points for everyone else.