Yes, regardless of how good is our walk on earth we will still end up unprofitable servants. We cannot save ourselves, we are totally dependent on Jesus Christ who in some mystical way 'paid' for our sins and can thus mete out mercy to balance the stern scales of justice at our judgment. His will be a perfect judgment I believe, He knows our every thought, word and deed. We will pay the consequences for our choices on earth, but because of Him, all good people will go to heaven.

My guess is that he was not an active informed Mormon if he told you that. Mormons believe that all people who do their best to keep God's commandments, regardless of religious affiliation, will go to heaven.

Regarding cults - the term has been confounded with the still-valid definitions of "heretical" and "schismatic."

The citation quotes:


This is a line of thought from early Christianity. The term "homoousios" was used specifically in the Nicene Creed to divide orthodoxy and heterodoxy. This makes LDS a heterodox religion from those which follow the Nicene Creed. So are the Unitarians.

One of the definitions used later in the passage to describe cults is:
The writer goes on to refute certain elements of this.

But a cult, as I see it, is a church which is built to manifest internal operating principles which are markedly at variance with those by which it is seen from the outside, and even from the beliefs of the non-core membership. Cults are marked by a progression of revelations towards a core understanding, by which a member becomes elevated within the church structure, and becomes privy to these variants beliefs. A completely cultic church would have core principles which are absolutely at variance with its stated, published and manifest beliefs. The Scientologists have perhaps been the first to design a "church" upon the cultic model from first principles.

Using this structure, can you address the question?

You're here to answer questions, not enter into debate, but I would quibble with your statement that the move to a secular society began a few decades ago. I would argue it started with the Founding Fathers, most of whom were Enlightenment Deists... such as Thomas Paine.

BTW, the division between Left and Right began in the French National Assembly shortly before the French Revolution.

Monarchists, aristocrats, supporters of the ancien regime, sat to the Right of the king.
Jacobins, democrats, sans-culottes, sat to the Left of the king.

Basically, the real division was between those satisfied with the status quo (of an aristocratic society where most people lived like paupers) sitting on the Right, and those wanting it changed or abolished sitting on the Left.

As your tourguide director in RandiLand, I just wanted to point out the map for a second.

The Focused Interests Land tends to be pointed towards a specific topic, and Happy Hour is more for woolgathering, perambulation, and going thither and yon.

We can move this thread over to Happy Hour if it gets to be a wool-gatherer and chat-file, or leave it here for more detailed concentration on LDS/Mormon. Or not.

Carry on! HYUK!

Some scholars have apparently made up their own unbiblical definition of "Christianity" to mean only those churches that accept the Nicene or similar creeds, and none else. Indeed that manmade definition excludes the Latter-day Saints AND the original Church of Jesus Christ organized by Jesus himself long before the Nicene Creed was invented. In like manner, your source apparently invents a definition of "cult" that may include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's not difficult to do something like that to exclude or include anyone or anything you want to. All you have to do is make up your own definition of a pertinent word and then tell everybody that your definition is "routinely said" and thus 'proves' or 'validates' your (perhaps arrogant or prideful elitist) point of view. At dictionary.com, regarding cults I find such things as:

<LI minmax_bound="true">A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. <LI minmax_bound="true">The followers of such a religion or sect. <LI minmax_bound="true">Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
1. The object of such devotion.

None of that applies to the Latter-day Saints. We are not a cult in the normal definition of the word "cult" but we can be made into a 'cult' in the minds of those who invent and teach their own definition/s of that word, whatever their motivation for doing so. Nicene and other manmade creeds teach that God is "incomprehensible". Latter-day Saints disagree. We declare that God and Jesus Christ LIVE, that they appeared to Joseph Smith, and Jesus to others, that they speak to living Apostles and Prophets in our time. That God is NOT incomprehensible, that the Bible is NOT all we're going to get from Him, that He STILL cares about and loves His children on earth, and that His authorized Church of Jesus Christ and apostolic sealing power are again on the earth to eternally bless His children.

Thanks for putting me in my place. But yes, you remember your Poli Sci better than I do.

I don't understand your comments but if you are a moderator and I'm somehow not sticking to your rules then I'm comfortable with moving along, it's a big web. Enjoy the day.

justa,

The only person I've ever heard vehemently identify the LDS as a cult was someone who had been a practising Mormon, who grew up in upstate NY not far from Palmyra(sp?), who was a devout Mormon for over 40 years who eventually left his wife and five children when he could no longer take the pressure of living, what he says, was to his soul, a lie. Was control. Was a programmed way of responding, thought reinforced daily by community. No island to call his own. His life since he's left has been up and downhill but he persevers and his children , who were terribly hurt by the betrayal of the "family", particularly at the time of their parents breach, have after period of time, opted for their father's Starbucks, Chardonnay, anarchistic lifestyle rather than abide or abode with their mother who faithfully follows and will so right on through eternity.

Sad really for if she "would only see the light" and lay off the 50% of the doctrine and dogma, he'd go back to her in a heartbeat. However, to hold on and hold too firm because a man has been given your magic, eternal name, the ultimate ear whisper, and if you don't reunite, you will never be together after the Coming of the Lord, is a little extreme, especially during War Time.

Do you really think Jesus is so petty?

Seems to me that if you were an active and "informed" Catholic you might not have joined the Mormon church. Besides, how can anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ go through the LDS temple endowment ceremonies (pre-1990) and NOT know that it is as far removed from the teachings of Christ as the Masonic rituals are.

How can you justify taking oaths (vows) to have your throat slit from ear to ear and to have your bowels cut open for revealing your "sacred" ceremonies? Again, if the LDS temple ceremonies were truly "Christian" then how can you justify the part of the ceremony which mocks Protestant ministers and identifies them as "hirelings of satan"? I understand that these parts of the LDS endowment ceremony were removed and are no longer included post 1990. My question is why were they a part of it at ALL?? Surely, someone who participated in such disgusting and disrespectful deeds can answer this question.

My source was only your own citation! In your citation, Mr. Jeff Lindsay set up a straw-man definition which he wished to refute. Nothing wrong with that. He did so. The definition which he wished to refute is his selection, not mine!

My definition of a cult is:


Another issue, which I wish to get into, will follow from your statement "Nicene and other manmade creeds teach that God is "incomprehensible"."

Creed simply derives from "credo", or "I believe," and is a recitation of one's religious beliefs, no more and no less. All creeds, perhaps, are "manmade" inasmuch as they are statements of belief by fallible humans. But a human cannot have any creed which does not originate from and center in one's self. To say, "No, I believe in God's Word as a creed" misses the point. I, a human, believe such-and-so. This is a creed.

One definition that is interesting:
Creed:

Thoughts on cults and creeds?

No concern. I was just politely pointing out that in focused interests, we tend to stick to the purpose of the thread. This is "Ask a Mormon," which implies of course 'about things related to LDS' and not 'what's your favorite color," etc. We were getting a little wandery off the topic - which is not a concern, really. In the happy hour section of the board, there's all manner of woolgathering and wandering and non-directed chatting. Just wanted to point that resource out to you.

Don't worry - if someone's breaking the rules, and I have to speak out as a moderator, I'm not at all difficult to figure out. This was just a little note for a newbie on the board, gentle, not at all meant to be taken as a reprimand. Carry on, please.

And who are you to pass judgment on who is and who isn't a "informed Mormon"? I seriously doubt an "active and informed Mormon" would tell us the truth about your secret temple ceremonies. Oh wait, I forgot, they're not "secret" rather "sacred". Honestly, do you really expect people to buy that line? Fact of the matter is that there are many former Mormons who have left the LDS church precisely because of this attitude.

For example I would not have known about the changes in the LDS temple ceremony by asking a so-called "active and informed Mormon" simply because of the secret oaths they take vowing not to reveal those things which are done inside LDS temples. Therefore, if I want to know the truth I would go to a site like:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/endowment.shtml
http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/endowment1.shtml
or
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon366.htm

Seems to me that if nothing inappropriate happened inside then there would have been no reason to make the changes that are so well documented.

The Mormons have what they call their "Articles of Faith". In a sense, it is their "creed" or statement of belief. Funny how they claim to not follow any "man made creeds" and yet a CREED is what the Articles of Faith are indeed.

Just out of curiosity Justamere, what are your thoughts on "Lying for the Lord"? Do you believe there is one "truth" for members of the LDS Church and another "truth" for those of us outside of your church? Here's a part of an article I recently read and I'd like to get your viewpoint.

"This legacy of deceit in the history and doctrine of the LDS church is well-known to those who walk in Mormon circles. There are numerous articles in “alternative” Mormon periodicals that deal with the subject of “lying for the Lord.” One that strikes to the heart of the matter was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.

Frances Lee Menlove, an active Mormon with a Ph.D. in psychology and a manuscript editor for Dialogue, wrote “The Challenge of Honesty” that appeared in the first issue of Dialogue in spring 1966. The essay calls for Mormons to, “meet openly the challenge of honesty.” She further states that, “It is the purpose of this paper to lay some groundwork for this self-examination.”7

Not only does Dr. Menlove issue this challenge to individual LDS members, but she also speaks to the institutional deception within the LDS church leadership:

“The failure to realize that the Mormon Church in all its manifestations, both historical and contemporary, is an intermingling of the human as well as the divine, also puts some obstacles in the way of honesty with others. In the first place, we have a proud and courageous history. Every Primary child knows the story of how our forefathers crossed the plains and made the desert bloom. Wallace Stegner calls the Mormon pioneers ‘...the most systematic, organized, disciplined, and successful pioneers in our history... .’ But the story of Joseph Smith, the early Church, the hegira across the plains, and the consequent establishment of Zion is more than just history. It is the story of God directing His People to a new Dispensation. Perhaps because the history is so fraught with theological significance, it has been smoothed and whittled down, a wrinkle removed here and a sharp edge there. In many ways it has assumed the character of a myth. That these courageous and inspired men shared the shortcomings of all men cannot be seriously doubted. That the Saints were not perfect nor their leaders without error is evident to anyone who cares to read the original records of the Church. But the myths and the myth-making persist. Striking evidence for this is found in the fact that currently one of the most successful anti-Mormon proselytizing techniques is merely to bring to light obscure or suppressed historical documents. Reading these historical documents arouses a considerable amount of incredulity, concern, and disenchantment among Mormons under the spell of this mythological view of history. That individuals find these bits and pieces of history so shocking and faith-shattering is at once the meat of fundamentalistic heresies and an indictment of the quasi-suppression of historical reality which propagates the one-sided view of Mormon history. The relevance of this to honesty is obvious. The net result of mythologizing our history is that the hard truth is concealed. It is deception to select only congenial facts or to twist their meaning so that error becomes wisdom, or to pretend that the Church exists now and has existed in a vacuum, uninfluenced by cultural values, passing fashions, and political ideologies.”8

The sentiments expressed above, in 1966, were confirmed in August 1981 when LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer gave an address to the Fifth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators’ Symposium, in Provo, Utah at Brigham Young University.

In his talk titled “The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect,” Packer opines that there are events in LDS history that should be repressed, because they are not “faith-building”:

“You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now.”9

“Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.”10

“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.”11

“Some things that are true are not very useful.”12

“That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.”13

Packer is obviously using his position as a leader of the LDS church to suppress the publication of any negative or controversial historical facts about that body. He and the church hierarchy that he is a member of want LDS history, “smoothed and whittled down, a wrinkle removed here and a sharp edge there.” He wants this mythical view of his church’s history to be propagated so that existing and potential members will “see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now.” He clearly is supporting the ongoing legacy of deception." http://www.pfo.org/decepton.htm

There are other articles regarding the topic of "Lying for the Lord" at http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord

PS: Look, the cult question was baby-easy, batting practice to answer. Feel free. And also the question on "creeds" is easy - Joseph Smith offered the Creed himself for the LDS Church.

But here's a harder question for you:

Early in Christianity, there was a line of thought called Arianism, which was decided in council to be heterodox, or heretical. This has nothing to do with the foul and noxious "Aryanism" of our recent millenium.

The question does not center on "what is heterodox" or "what is orthodox." All that matters is that this question was raised and discussed back then.

The doctrine is somewhat strange and obscure to consider in modern religious terms. As written by an opponent to the doctrine:
LINK.

Two major religious traditions have these things in common:

• Opposition to Trinitarianism.
• True prophesy by Jesus.
• Corruption of true prophesy by the early Church.
• Restoration of the True Church by divine revelation.
• Codification of latter-day revelation into canonical Scripture.
• A single prophet to whom the corrected scripture was revealed.
• Rapid development of a new religious community led by the Prophet.

Fundamentally, one can see Mohammed's leadership and foundation of Islam to be a re-emergence of Arianism in a different form. Few draw the lines of Christian heterodoxy broadly enough to include Islam as a "Christian Heresy" deriving from Arianism.

Here's the question after all this windup: How can the Mormon Church be seen as any closer to orthodox Christianity than Islam is? Except for the details of when, where and who - they are nearly identical in fundamentals.

I find it sad that, for whatever reasons or pretended reasons, a man would desert his wife and children and abandon his once cherished religious beliefs. Not always, but in many cases LDS apostates left the Church because of adultery or some other serious sin. I have no sympathy whatsoever for the man in your illustration, only sorrow for the wife and children whom he caused such pain by his selfish behavior.

Those are strong words for someone who probably has never been a Latter-day Saint or worthily set foot in an operating dedicated LDS temple. Every one of God's commandments is given us for a spiritual purpose, to help us move closer to Him, if we would only choose to abide by them. Everything that is from Him is symbolic, leading the human mind to greater comprehension of eternal things. Those who have prepared themselves for greater knowledge, and ask God, often find it. Those who choose to scoff and mock the sacred beliefs and religious practices of others have their reward, for as long as it lasts.

I love being inside the temples. I consider them to be the gateways to Heaven, God's universities. Inside those quiet places worthy husbands and wives are eternally sealed to each other, and their children to them, as God said it would be done in the Fulness of Times.

My thoughts this morning on cults and creeds are that they exist, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neither.

If I wanted to know the truth about Catholics I would go to an official Catholic website or ask an active informed Catholic. If I was not a Latter-day Saint and I wanted to know the TRUTH about the Latter-day Saints I would go to an official LDS website such as http://www.lds.org or http://www.mormon.org or even an unofficial 'apologetic' website such as http://www.fairlds.org

But of course everyone is free to choose their own way of finding the truth.

Except for one difference - while the Arians thought the Son was lesser than the Father, they still accepted the partial divinity of Jesus and the Trinity - they simply denied the co-equality of all units within it.

Islam says that he was a mortal prophet, just like the six others that preceded him.

The LDS Articles of Faith are in our canon, as is the Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. We believe that God continues to speak to and reveal His will to His authorized and duly ordained Apostles and Prophets.

The Articles of Faith were published early in Church history, not long after the Church was legally organized in 1830.

Since you brought the topic up for discussion I'll copy below the Articles of Faith that Latter-day Saints accept as scripture.






1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

-

I, and probably most Latter-day Saints have never before heard of your topic "Lying for the Lord." It is not part of our beliefs and teachings.

If you accept the definition of truth as being something like: "Truth is that which is, which always was, and which always will be" we could have a discussion about things eternal, which usually is what most religion forums focus on. Otherwise we could argue about what is truth all the day long and never convince the other about anything. Latter-day Saints believe that much truth is taught in all valid churches and in many other places where human beings are found. We're all FOR truth wherever it may be found. And that's not a lie. :-) As for your article that you want me to comment on I read only your first sentence to know I am not interested in reading more:

"This legacy of deceit in the history and doctrine of the LDS church is well-known to those who walk in Mormon circles." Now THAT in my opinion is a lie!

Shhh...that was the setup question. You ringer, you.


One perspective on Jesus as told in the Qur'an is described in this reference, which is pretty standard fare:


In the Quran, the sura of Mary offers from Jesus:
[19:33] And peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I get resurrected.

Although the Arianism of Islam seems more extreme than the Arianism of the Mormon Church, I believe that they are comparable in essence.

With respect, your opening statement gives me the impression that you think we are in some kind of a competition to 'best' each other with superior knowledge, reasoning, analytical skills, bigger biceps, whatever. You then proceed to your own ball field, expecting perhaps that I'll fold because I'm not a scholar or a historian and am not familiar with Catholic doctrine and early church history.

Ok, I fold!

I'm not a scholar or a historian and I'm not familiar with the history of the Catholic church.

If you want to learn more about the religious beliefs and practices of the LDS Church and its members, I'd be pleased to respond.

No, I have never been through the LDS endowment ceremony, but I have been through and LDS temple tour prior to it being dedicated. Are you denying that changes were made to the ceremonies performed in LDS temples? Because I can provide transcripts pre-1990 and post 1990 to show you the differences. But, I have no doubt that you are already aware of those changes. Were the ceremonies man-made or given to the LDS church from God? If they are from God then what right does the LDS church have to change them? Are you still bound by the oaths you took pre-1990 or do you no longer have to slit your own throat now?

Shall I give you an example of your own Prophets who have lied? Most recently, prior to his death, was how Gordon B. Hinckley lied about what is taught in the LDS Church.

"The legacy President Hinckley left behind will be one of deception while hiding behind a smiling face to many Mormons. Some may say this is an unfair judgment of his tenure as prophet but the fact that he lied about Mormon doctrine to reporter for Time magazine about Mormon doctrines baffled many of the faithful and gave additional material to Anti-Mormons and Ex-Mormons to attack him and the organization he represents for being dishonest.

The Mormon doctrine in question was whether or not faithful Mormons could become Gods. The doctrine dates back to Joseph Smith Jr, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and does in fact state that men can become gods. A later Mormon prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith would later summarize the doctrine "As man is now, god once was. As god is now man may become."

When the reporter for Time pressed the aging Mormon prophet, he said, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it.""
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/3...het_gordon.html

More examples of LDS deception and lies - http://packham.n4m.org/lying.htm

You can imagine and speculate about what goes on in LDS temples as much as you want. Or you can enter in at the strait gate, live worthily for at least one year (including no fornication or adultery) and find out for yourself what God has provided in these Fulness of Times to bless His children.

As you already know, Latter-day Saints believe that the original Church of Jesus Christ has been restored in these latter days and that God again speaks to His authorized Apostles and Prophets as He did anciently.

It doesn't matter what God says or does, HE is the standard of righteousness. He will direct His servants on earth as He wants to. And that includes of course the things He wants done in His holy temples.

The apostolic sealing power is delegated by the Apostles only to certain very worthy High Priests who exercise that power in the temples to seal in heaven as is sealed on earth. Even those chosen High Priests are required to speak word for word what God has revealed to be the only way to validly carry out those ordinances in His temples and bind Him to that covenant as long as the other party keeps their part of it.

Families can be forever...

Again, you can choose to believe everybody else about the Latter-day Saints, or you can choose to believe the Saints themselves. There are apostates and enemies of the LDS Church who build anti-Mormon websites to teach you everything except the truth about the Mormons.

In fact, as I understand it, Mormon bashing has become a very lucrative industry with huge amounts of money being made by those who write books and pamphlets and generate and market and sell anti-Mormon media. Some preachers buy into that and teach their flock to in effect hate the Mormons. That's why there are so many misunderstandings and outright lies about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in circulation.

I appreciate your interest in the Mormons, but with respect, it is my opinion that you are spending too much time on anti-Mormon websites. You'd be much less confused and misinformed about our beliefs if you'd get your information from active informed Latter-day Saints and official LDS websites.

But perhaps you think by putting down someone else's church and beliefs you are somehow making more valid your own church and its doctrines?

I am entirely secure in my religious beliefs and knowledge. And I think most other active Latter-day Saints are as well. Evidence of that is that the Saints are not building anti-otherdenomination websites or attacking the sacred beliefs of others.

Why do you say specifically "including no fornication or adultery"? That seems odd. Why not say "no drinking coffee or cheating on your taxes"? Wouldn't any "sin" make a person "unworthy" to enter the LDS temples and participate in it's ceremonies?

I see you, once again, have avoided admitting that you have vowed to slit your own throat if you reveal your endowment ceremony. But honestly, if a part of the ceremony were removed, is it still binding on that person? And if it is no longer a part of the temple ceremony then why not talk about it?

For example:

"Since most Mormon converts in the 1970's and 1980's were coming from a Christian background, it was becoming apparent to LDS leaders in the 1980's that ridiculing the Protestant minister in the temple film was offensive to many new converts. There were even some reports of converts attending the temple once, and vowing to never return -- sometimes even refusing to return to any LDS meetings." http://www.lds-mormon.com/whytemplechanges.shtml

Is it just me or does anyone else find the following information highly disrespectful:

"ADAM:: Oh God, hear the words of my mouth.
Oh God, hear the words of my mouth.
Oh God, hear the words of my mouth.

(As Adam prays, Lucifer approaches from behind out of the shadows.)

LUCIFER:: I hear you; what is it you want?

(Although Adam has already encountered Lucifer in the Garden of Eden, he fails to recognize him at this appearance.)

ADAM:: Who are you?

LUCIFER:: I am the God of this world.

ADAM:: You, the God of this world?

LUCIFER:: Yes, what do you want?

ADAM:: I am looking for messengers.

LUCIFER:: Oh, you want someone to preach to you. You want religion, do you? I will have preachers here presently. There will be many willing to preach to you the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

(Lucifer turns his head as a sectarian minister approaches.)

LUCIFER:: Good Morning sir!

SECTARIAN MINISTER: Good morning!

(The preacher turns and looks into the camera.)

SECTARIAN MINISTER: A fine congregation!

LUCIFER:: Yes, they are a very good people. They are concerned about religion. Are you a preacher?

SECTARIAN MINISTER: I am.

LUCIFER:: Have you been to college and received training for the ministry?

SECTARIAN MINISTER: Certainly! A man cannot preach unless has been trained for the ministry.

LUCIFER:: Do you preach the orthodox religion?

SECTARIAN MINISTER: Yes, that is what I preach.

LUCIFER:: If you will preach your orthodox religion to these people, and convert them, I will pay you well.

SECTARIAN MINISTER: I will do my best." http://www.lds-mormon.com/compare2.shtml

This thread isn't about my church or doctrines, it's about your's. YOU were the one who started this thread, in case you forgot. It is clear we cannot get the truth from so-called "active and informed Mormons" therefore, in order to see past the obfuscation and "white-lies" told by Mormons it is necessary to visit websites like http://www.lds-mormon.com/ and http://www.irr.org/mit/ and http://www.utlm.org/ to get the "other side" of the story. It's really too bad that Mormons can't just tell us the truth from the git-go rather than giving us pat answers like "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little" and the oh so famous "milk before meat" excuse.

So it's better to live a lie in order to maintain the status quo? Where is your compassion for a fellow Mormon (with two degrees from BYU) lost on the path? Or is it easier to ex-communicate someone and close ranks against them than acknowledge their pain and feelings of betrayal? Even Jesus doubted.

And back to my original question, do you really think that Jesus is so petty that if this gentleman does not repent and return to Mormonism and his wife, she will not have a place in eternity?

In my opinion the man in your illustration is the one who is living a lie, the woman is valiant to her testimony and enduring to the end in righteousness. The man can choose to repent, keep the commandments, and become a member of the LDS Church again if he was in fact excommunicated. If he was excommunicated it was most likely for adultery, cheating on his wife.

We believe that none of God's children will lose eternal blessings because of the unrighteousness of another. If the woman in your illustration continues to endure to the end she too can receive the highest of God's blessings and the greatest eternal happiness in the next life.

I agree. The reply which I received was:



I wish to ask questions of someone who appears to sincerely believe in the LDS/Mormon church. I am uninterested in discussion for discussion's sake.

My impression is that the fundamentals of the LDS Church, especially the "Discovery of the Tablets" was a conscious and deliberate fraud created by the founder and perhaps his associates. My impression is not from the slurs of renegade former LDS members - but from the suspicious circumstances in which the text were found, read, and then no longer available. The purported ethnology, sociology and anthropology of the prehistoric North American continent is absolutely at variance with the physical record. It is far easier to concoct evidence for a "Young Earth" hypothesis than for the attestations of the dogmatic text of the LDS Church.

What reason Smith had for his invention, I do not know. L. Ron Hubbard invented Scientology for a very straightforward purpose - to make money. I think that Smith aggregated a congregation for his own - and their own - social purposes, and that he attracted people who sincerely believe in the validity of his threadbare religious dogmas. Even through the life of Joseph Smith Jr., his "revealed theology" was arbitrary and variant. This left LDS/Mormons who sincerely believe in this stuff, to be unable to handle the frank and unexplainable incongruities in their religion. This develops the bad habit of rejecting the products of reason and logic when they cause one's dogma to become unwieldy. THAT is an evil purpose.

I see LDS as a synthetic religious structure that attracted genuine adherents. The religion outlived the scam, as far as I can tell. However, the anxiety about clear doctrinal inconsistencies leads Mormons to take a paranoid posture about the fundamentals of its own structure, leading it to a cultic posture (by my definition.)

But this thread is not "Tell A Mormon," but "Ask a Mormon." That is why I have asked questions until the initiator of the thread become reluctant to discuss matters.

Very nicely said, I doubt I would have been able to word it so tactfully and kid gloved.

If you'll notice the O.P's responses have been very pat, almost rehearsed. Many answers are based on "because the LDS says so" and rarely on any cognitive reasoning of the poster's part. Which is to be expected from a believer in the dogmatic. But when that dogma can be scrutinized in a solid historical reference with other sources it becomes rather silly and disingenuous in its presentation. And nearly "cult-like" in it's nature.

Scary, considering the O.P's ability to conjure up a form of articulateness, even though the conciseness of the posts, are rooted in tomfoolery.

Well, allow me to tell a Cowboy, but it seems to me you are using "Arianism" as a catch all phrase for all the early Christological heresies.

I agree Arianism was the heresy of choice combatted at the Council of Nicaea, but it was not the only early Christian heresy.

There were a variety of positions, such as Docetism, Monophysitism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism, among others. There were a variety of positions on the Trinity, on the relationships and nature of its components, on the nature of Jesus himself. Human, divine, both, neither, a mixture, an angel, made divine at his baptism?

I think it's fascinating to watch those early debates and arguments, but it would be foolish not to realize that the winnowing of positions was essentially a political process.

It's interesting that only in the 20th century have we started to see the re-emergence of some "non Nicene" positions, such as the Unitarians, Mormons, or the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Well, I left my religion-type books up at the ranch house, but I always think of Doceticism as the inverse of Arianism. Many modern orthodox Christians err instinctively towards the Docetist heresy, with discomfort about essential human attributes being applied to Jesus. I thought that the world "homo-ousios" might ring a bell regarding Arianism, but it went over like a fart in the elevator, 'fraid.

I remember that the Nestorians and Monophysites fought like rats in a barrel, but I don't remember what they were fighting about, and they both got tossed out of the bar, anyhow.

Adoptionism has the same sort of "heretical" concept towards Jesus as LDS has towards God in general - an evolutory, living-in-time sorta thing.

I keep asking the Gnostics what they're all about, but they won't tell me. "Don't ask, don't tell" and they never call me back. I'm getting a sneaky feeling they don't like me.



Big 10-4 from the Cowboy on that one! Don't forget the SuperStar element - if Clement of Alexandria or Veronica's kid - what's his name again - yeah, Augustine of Hippo - if they didn't like it, it didn't get thru the velvet ropes.

PS: Islam has great affection for Isa (Jesus) and the people of the book (Injil.) They attribute a supernatural birth to Jesus, pre-conceptual predestination for Jesus, and spoke of his resurrection in the Qur'an in some very subtle ways, hard to figure out. They attributed supernatural capacity to him, and the ability to inerrantly deliver the word of God, making him superior (in some ways) to Mohammed-as-Messenger, delivering the Qur'an. It's hard to see how Islam varies from Arianism sufficiently to slide a piece of paper betwixt.

And to call Mormon/LDS Christian is fine with me - as long as we recognize that Muslim Clerics are Christian, and Gandhi, too. You gotta throw the net THAT wide to catch the LDS church.

Ticks me off when people go out to Iraq to "evangelize" the Muslims by spreading the Gospel. Them ol' Muslims already believe that the Gospel is the Word of God, and is (likely) independently salvific, although they get kinda ambivalent about this last point.

We're far afield, here, of course, but I think one place Gnosticism has made a comeback is in popular culture.

There have been several good articles on Gnostic themes in the Matrix, which very heavily promotes a Gnostic worldview.

http://www.killingthebuddha.com/critical_devotion/gnosis.htm

In film two, they even provide you with the Demiurge: the Architect.

Another film that I think is very Gnostic in its message is The Truman Show.

This article covers the Gnostic themes in a lot of recent films.

http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa072302a.htm

I think the Gnostic position is essentially this: the only one who can save you is you, but the only way you can save yourself is to realize what you really are. Part of that realization is that the world you are living in is, at least, partly illusory.

Christ is important, but only for showing the way, and teaching others how to awaken themselves.

"endure to the end". Because endurance is one of a woman's paramount virtues, isn't it? Wrapped in Eve's curse birthing babies, motherhood being the paramount virtue/obligation.

A branch of my cousins have converted to Mormonism over the last few decades, mainly from something vaguely protestant or other. One of my cousins was excommunicated from the Mormon Church because she fled her home when her husband beat her one too many times and she refused to go back regardless of what the church elders counseled/ordered. Her husband was allowed to stay. Her own brother would not speak up for her (then again, he had experience in the excommunication game because he'd already excommunicated his adopted teenage daughter for being disobediant and loose).

No, of course, I'm sure that's not typical, one Mormon community/congregation can be very different from another, there is room for interpretation in the Word and some people obviously misuse it, right?

Endure to the end...

Why wait to see what happens in the next life? Why not experience God's highest blessings and greatest eternal happiness while we're still alive? Then in the next life, we will have traveled far enough down the Road to give God greater glory and make the life after the next life ever more wonderous.

I should have defined my use of the common LDS phrase "endure to the end". It means that people who are on the right path, keeping the commandments and their covenants with God, trying their best to avoid sin, repenting as necessary; if they "endure" in that lifestyle until their death will do well at their judgement.

Enduring to the end the way we use that phrase applies equally to male and female.

One of your cousins may have been excommunicated from the LDS Church, but it is highly unlikely that she would have been removed from membership in the Church for the reasons you describe.

"Man is that he might have joy". Great happiness can be found by those of all denominations who keep God's commandments as best they can and live lives of service to others. Latter-day Saints don't "wait" for the next life to experience happiness.

Who is more likely to enter into one of the higher levels of Heaven: (a) someone who in his heart accepts the Mormon faith and believes its tenets but does many sinful things (cheats on his wife, drinks to excess, you get the picture) or ( an avowed atheist who, apart from not participating in the rituals and formal life of the LDS Church, lives a model, highly-moral life?

Just as God Himself has revealed directly to you that the tenets of the LDS faith are true, there are fundamentalist evangelical Christians who say the same about their faith, and Catholics, and Muslims, and Jews who say the same about their faiths.

How, in the opinion of the Mormons, can all these people who have very different understandings of what living a life according to God's ways entails make a life together and come to agreement on rules about how to govern secular affairs and how to use the limited natural resources available on Earth?

To give a very concrete example of what I am asking, when certain Muslims say that God has told them they (and only they) are meant by God to live on land in Jerusalem, and certain Jews say that God has told them that they (and only they) are entitled to the same land, how should these two groups decide what will be done with the land?

Good question.

The LDS Church is not for everyone, it's a strict moral discipline. A Mormon who cheats on his wife is not likely to remain a Mormon for very long, adultery is cause for excommunication.

We believe that all good people will go to heaven. We also believe that there are three kingdoms of glory (heavens.) God of course will exercise a perfect judgment on each of His children. Jesus Christ because of the atonement has the power to balance the scales of justice and mete out to each individual according to his righteous judgment. He knows our every deed, thought, and motivation.

My guess is that the first person you mention will not do very well at all in the judgment unless he sincerely repents and gives up his sins prior to death. He would probably be headed to the lowest kingdom.

The right living atheist in my opinion, depending possibly on the reasons why he/she is an atheist, would probably be headed to the middle kingdom. He would have a chance in the spirit worlds to be taught the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If he accepted it there, he could be headed for the highest kingdom after essential earthly ordinances are done for him by proxy in LDS temples on earth.

Conjecture of course, but in keeping with my knowledge of LDS beliefs.

Justamere, you used the term fornication several times in this thread.

What do you mean by fornication?

Well, not to be a stickler on this point, but believe it or not, the Quran actually backs up the JEWISH claim. You might think I'm kidding, but it does.

Here's a Muslim scholar who says the Quran supports the Jews' right to the land and Jerusalem.

http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html

That said, to be terribly honest, these are not the theological kinds of disputes or arguments I like to get into. The argument between Israelis and Palestinians over boundaries and borders is a political one and is not, except indirectly, a "Muslim Jewish" argument.

BTW, to clarify one point, even Biblical literalists would have to acknowledge that although the Bible says Jews should have sovereignty over the land, there was never any demand that only Jews be allowed to live there. Even in Biblical times it was not a racist state. King David had Hittites and Midianites in his army.

Mormons believe that God speaks to ALL of His children. But many of them won't listen, or are confused enough or tempted enough to break God's commandments and turn to lives of selfishness or ceaseless seeking for more and more pleasure or unrighteous power over others.

God speaks by what we call the "Light of Christ" or the "conscience" to everyone until such time as they sear their conscience by consistent disobedience to that guiding light. God also speaks occasionally in a more formal and much more powerful way by the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, a member of the Godhead speaking Spirit to spirit. We believe that worthy Latter-day Saints who have been baptized and confirmed by proper Priesthood authority can have the Holy Ghost to be their constant companion and guide.

I personally do not think that all of God's children on earth today are going to come to an agreement about secular government. I think that wars and natural disasters are going to become more frequent and more severe. I think it will only be shortly before the glorious Second Coming of Jesus Christ that a budding successful secular government based on the teachings of Jesus Christ will be established. During the thousand years of peace known as the "Millennium" Jesus Christ will personally live on this earth and will be the King of a theocratic one world government. Leaders of that government will include righteous members of churches other than His own.

Now, if only everyone would renounce violence....

I define "fornication" as someone who is not legally married having sexual relations with someone else. If that someone else is legally married and cheating on their spouse he/she would be committing adultery, the unmarried person involved in the same act would be committing fornication.

I was in Israel for several days earlier this year. There are huge numbers of Arabs living in and around Jerusalem and other parts of Israel. In my opinion it's minority groups that resort to violence who are causing the major problems.

Now, if only everyone would renounce violence...

Seeker, you are completely missing the point. Two different people of faith can take the same written words and interpret them differently, guided by the "Word of God" as each hears it in his own mind. Thus there are countless (and in some cases contradictory) versions of Christianity, all based on the alleged deeds and sayings of Jesus Christ and his followers.

I offered the issue of Jews and Muslims because it is a very real conflict that affects all living things in the world (in this nuclear age), whether they are believers or not.

The issue remains, if one person hears God telling him something (only men can be priests) and another person hears God telling her something contradictory (only women can be priests), how can these people make a life together without one killing the other?