Randi Rhodes Message Board

leftcoastfarmer

Jun 3 2008, 01:26 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 2 2008, 08:09 PM)

During one of the Republican Presidential primary debates, the candidates were asked, "Do you believe every word of this book |Holy Bible|?"

Mitt Romney replied, "I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely."
When challenged by the moderator with, "Does that mean you believe every word?", Romney seemed to struggle over his response, saying,
"Uh, you know -- Yeah, I believe it's the word of God. The Bible is the word of God. I mean - I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it."

If the Bible is the literal word of God, how do Mormons square the contradictions that are in the Bible?

I remember this...
Being an exmo, I still remember the LDS Articles of faith, the eight one states - " 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." I was wonder how his answer was taken by fellow mormons. Notice that he didn't use the Article of Faith answer "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly - that part would have pissed off more than a few repub Christians. So was he answering honestly? I was really hoping that he would have given the practiced answer that mormons are taught. Man, would that have opened a can of worms. Most folks don't realize that J. Smith had a done his own "corrected translation" of the bible. Or that they believe that the bible is slightly corrupted.
As for the contradictions, I'd rather let justmere10 answer that.

visionari

Jun 3 2008, 01:36 AM

QUOTE (justamere10 @ May 29 2008, 12:36 AM)

We don't think of temple garments as being "magic". They are worn, like the Jews and others wear certain clothing, to remind the wearer of sacred covenants made with God.

I recall watching 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace interviewing Gordon Hinckley. Hinckley said that the sacred undergarments do protect the wearer from harm, and that he knew this from personal experience (his legs were burned in an accident, but only in areas that were not covered by the undergarments).

Do most Mormons actually believe that the garments protect them by their divine nature from physical bodily harm?
If they do, how do the Mormons account for people who are injured, even killed in accidents, while wearing the garments?

Myoho

Jun 3 2008, 01:57 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 2 2008, 11:40 PM)

Myoho, there was a documentary on the Mormons on PBS, I think, last year. Did you happen to see it?
They showed rooms from what I believe were temples (or a temple), including a baptismal pool.

Yes... I did see it.

The Baptismal Font is always built below ground. If I remember corectly the Font in the Temple sits on top of twelve Oxen.

leftcoastfarmer

Jun 3 2008, 02:03 AM

QUOTE (CowboySteve @ Jun 2 2008, 09:33 PM)

Why is the LDS Church so stridently angry at their former members, accusing them of deception and invention about the church? I have seen it elsewhere. There seems to be no room for someone's belief changing, but rather, there seems to be an oppositional suspicion towards former LDS members. I have not seen this with other denominations. Why?

I've been out of the mormon church for over 20 years now. Still my family is angry. I've been nearly cut off from family that is still mormon. I was born into mormonism; one of my ancestors was in carthage jail when J. Smith was killed. You could say that steeped in mormonism.

I believe that Mormonism is flat out a cult.

Sorry if that statement of belief offends folks.
I've been told by family members that I am a son of perdition, for turning my back on the church.
They, like so many fundamentalists, believe that there is a real war going on right now between good and evil. In calling me a son of perdition they are asserting that I have joined the other side.

I no longer allow church (or by proxy, family) to control me in anyway. This I believe drives the anger.

visionari

Jun 3 2008, 02:04 AM

Yes, they showed something that looked like that.

So does that mean it's ok for the public to be allowed to see images of the temple, even if they cannot enter the temple?
Or would those images have just been either images of fakes made explicitly for the purpose of educating the public or images of temples taken during the open house?

leftcoastfarmer

Jun 3 2008, 02:14 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 2 2008, 10:29 PM)

Yes, they showed something that looked like that.

So does that mean it's ok for the public to be allowed to see images of the temple, even if they cannot enter the temple?
Or would those images have just been either images of fakes made explicitly for the purpose of educating the public or images of temples taken during the open house?

I believe its still ok to show the images. The font is as shown in the picture. I've been baptized in several of the temples. The font is used for baptisms for the dead.

visionari

Jun 3 2008, 02:15 AM

QUOTE (leftcoastfarmer @ Jun 3 2008, 02:28 AM)

I've been told by family members that I am a son of perdition, for turning my back on the church.
They, like so many fundamentalists, believe that there is a real war going on right now between good and evil. In calling me a son of perdition they are asserting that I have joined the other side.

I no longer allow church (or by proxy, family) to control me in anyway. This I believe drives the anger.

From what I have been reading in this thread, it sounds like the Mormon faith is a lot more forgiving that some other faiths, such as those who believe the unbaptized go straight to Hell without passing Go or the Calvinists who believe certain people are predestined by God to eternal damnation (even before they are born).

At least you can still get back in good with the church if you repent and mend your ways. Haha

And people can baptise you even after you're long dead and gone.

CowboySteve

Jun 3 2008, 02:20 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 2 2008, 11:43 PM)

It would seem that a believer would come to the conclusion that the only way someone who has "seen the light" could subsequently change his mind would be under the influence of Satan or one of his minions. And surely Satan would want to try to break the church.

Some folks call that a paranoid delusion. One give-away is that Satan seems to always pick the people who disagree with you. Pretty interesting coincidence, eh? Never picks on the teammates, always hits the opposition.

Myoho

Jun 3 2008, 02:27 AM

QUOTE (leftcoastfarmer @ Jun 3 2008, 12:28 AM)

I've been out of the mormon church for over 20 years now. Still my family is angry. I've been nearly cut off from family that is still mormon. I was born into mormonism; one of my ancestors was in carthage jail when J. Smith was killed. You could say that steeped in mormonism.

I believe that Mormonism is flat out a cult.

Sorry if that statement of belief offends folks.
I've been told by family members that I am a son of perdition, for turning my back on the church.
They, like so many fundamentalists, believe that there is a real war going on right now between good and evil. In calling me a son of perdition they are asserting that I have joined the other side.

I no longer allow church (or by proxy, family) to control me in anyway. This I believe drives the anger.

leftcoastfarmer - I went through these same thoughts many years ago. I hope you join us in the discussions of the Four Noble Truths.

I am out of steam for the night. But, if I can I would like to offer you this prayer to contemplate.

From the Heart Sutra:

No Old Age... and Death.
No End to Old Age... and Death.
No Suffering... No Causal,
no end to Suffering.
No Path...
No Wisdom... and no gain.
... no gain.
Thus Bodhisattvas live in perfect understanding with no hindrance of mind.
... no hindrance of mind,
no hindrance...
therefore no fear.

Far beyond deluded thoughts...
this... is Nirvana.

madame-defarge

Jun 3 2008, 06:47 AM

QUOTE (justamere10 @ Jun 2 2008, 11:08 PM)

Somehow I didn't think you'd be able to resist doing what you can to try to deceive others about the LDS Church and its beliefs and teachings.

You make some interesting comments, did you make them up yourself, or did you copy them from an anti-Mormon site? I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote, as would most active informed Latter-day Saints.

Justa,

I find it interesting that you are so judgemental about other peoples's pains and conflicts when it comes to your church. You've belittled the two people, good people, whom I mentioned. You're now calling Myoho deceptive when they're telling you/testifying to all of us their experience (and I'm sure you'll do the same with leftcoast). Hmm...

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 07:22 AM

QUOTE (Myoho @ Jun 2 2008, 09:47 PM)

No, I did not copy the meanings.

Yes... I did go back on my word on this thread. But I know so much about it.

Mormonism is beautiful in its' own way. But I do not believe it as truth.

I think it is an incomplete path. There is no training of the mind. Only Faith.

Mormons are very resourceful and care DEEPLY about the poor and underpriviledged. They are the best coordinators of any Christian religion I have ever known of.

But they sure would not hesitate to throw you in a ditch if you are gay or lesbian!
That is the easy way out. Blind faith kills blindly.

Indeed, Mormons in general are kind, caring, responsible people who are often the first on the scene of a disaster to provide aid and supplies. We walk the way Jesus taught us to walk. (Most of us.)

Some members of the LDS Church are homosexual, but if they actively engage in immoral sexual behavior they too are unworthy of attending the temples, the same as are those who commit fornication or adultery with people of the opposite gender, and are subject to excommunication for the same reason/s. The LDS Church is a church, not a secular entity. Sin against God's commandments is important to churches and IS their business when it concerns their own members. People who choose to consistently commit serious sin would not likely be comfortable among us. Excommunication is a loving act that demonstrates the seriousness of sin (symbolically casting one out of God's presence.) People who have been excommunicated have the opportunity of sincerely repenting and forsaking the sin/s, and being rebaptized as members of the Church.

That's hardly throwing someone in a ditch!

By the way, faith is not blind, in fact the spiritual path is much more certain than the learning of man that is constantly in flux as new discoveries are made. People who choose to consistently sin against God often come up with creative ways to rationalize and justify their behavior, but their Father in Heaven sees it all. We all have free choice, there are consequences for every choice, most of them delayed so we can be tested, some of them eternal.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 07:27 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 2 2008, 10:09 PM)

During one of the Republican Presidential primary debates, the candidates were asked, "Do you believe every word of this book |Holy Bible|?"

Mitt Romney replied, "I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely."
When challenged by the moderator with, "Does that mean you believe every word?", Romney seemed to struggle over his response, saying,
"Uh, you know -- Yeah, I believe it's the word of God. The Bible is the word of God. I mean - I might interpret the word differently than you interpret the word, but I read the Bible and I believe the Bible is the word of God. I don't disagree with the Bible. I try to live by it."

If the Bible is the literal word of God, how do Mormons square the contradictions that are in the Bible?

Indeed there are contradictions in the bible. The bible is a set of inspired books that were chosen from among many others by councils of men, and compiled into the book we call the "Bible". It proceeded from the Jews, as did the Book of Mormon.

"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." Article of Faith 8 http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1

Seeker1

Jun 3 2008, 07:33 AM

QUOTE (Myoho @ Jun 3 2008, 01:38 AM)

I don't know Cowboy... however, I have ALWAYS heard they are in cahoots with the Masons. I cannot verify this.

The article on the Temple garments in Wiki says the insignias on them are known as the Square and Compass.

Seems pretty clear to me.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 07:34 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 2 2008, 10:14 PM)

I might add that, as you can see from the Youtube link to that segment of the debate above, Rudy Giuliani was very clear in saying that from his (non-Mormon) perspective, many parts of the Bible are to be taken as allegory, not literally. Romney seemed to be trying to avoid having to address the issue of fundamentalist/literalist reading of the Bible.

As I'm sure you are aware, presidential campaigns are all about TEMPORAL office. We are not choosing a pastor or priest or church leader but a USA president. The media sometimes brings undue pressure on the candidates with regards to their religious affiliation and beliefs. My guess is that Mitt Romney responded as best he thought he could in that light, he's a politician.

Mitt Romney as far as I know is a faithful member of the LDS Church, as is Harry Reid the Democrat leader. I think there are about 16 members of Congress who are LDS, on both sides of the aisle. Mormons are generally great volunteers, they render much service to the community and God's children.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 07:40 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 2 2008, 10:51 PM)

I have to agree, they are great builders.

But then, so were the Egyptians and the Aztecs.

Are you equating Latter-day Saints with the blood thirsty human sacrificing Aztecs?

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 07:49 AM

QUOTE (RealLiberal1 @ Jun 2 2008, 11:00 PM)

What does an expensive building have in common with your savior, Jesus Christ???

Jesus was a humanist as well as a spiritual guide. I simply do not recollect reading (in the Bible) that Jesus advocated such a building and other products of worldly wealth.

How many homeless could be housed and fed with the money spent on such an elaborate piece of idolatry???

You ask the same question that Judas Iscariot asked Jesus when he was anointed for his death with expensive oil.

Temples are the House of the Lord. Is anything too good for God? The Saints sacrificed enormously several times in their formational years to build a house of God, as He commanded, because only in those sacred buildings can the apostolic sealing power be excercised to bless God's children eternally. They knew they would soon be driven from their temple by bloodthirsty plundering mobbers, but they listened to God not their fears.

Inside those holy temples takes place the vital work of redeeming the dead and sealing husbands and wives to each other, and their children to them for eternity, as God wants it to be and commanded His Saints to do in these latter days. Families can be forever.

Temple work will continue throughout the Millennium at which time temples will "dot the earth." Those who serve inside God's house do not have their minds on the trappings of this world, temples are functional buildings dedicated to the glory and work of God.

CowboySteve

Jun 3 2008, 07:53 AM

QUOTE (madame-defarge @ Jun 3 2008, 05:12 AM)

Justa,

I find it interesting that you are so judgemental about other peoples's pains and conflicts when it comes to your church. You've belittled the two people, good people, whom I mentioned. You're now calling Myoho deceptive when they're telling you/testifying to all of us their experience (and I'm sure you'll do the same with leftcoast). Hmm...

M-D, I think we're all picking up some ideas and definitions of what constitutes a cult. There is definitely something there about how a religion deals with its apostates, dissenters and former members. Perhaps we should think about "cultishness" in religion as a "how much?" question, rather than a "yes/no" question. Some religions can have some degree of cultlike behavior, others less.

Buddhists, for example, would seem to me to have no interest in scrutinizing others' "orthodoxy." They might offer the suggestion that in spite of one trying to deviate from one's own path, one remains on one's on path, regardless. But the idea of punishing heterodoxy is rather bewildering, in Buddhism.

Note that the LDS/Mormon perspective attempts to comingle and confuse "participation" with "rejection." Many religions with liturgical rites exclude those who are not "eligible" from those rights. But there is a whole gamut run between excluding, for instance, the deliberately disruptive, from a ritual - to persecuting the heretical. The answer regarding the exclusion of gay members neatly runs the gamut across this range, and wads them all into the same degree of self-approval. Thus, we see the "loving excommunication" of permanently unacceptable persons from the LDS/Mormon Church, as something as kind and natural as shushing a restless child.

There's something here that has a nugget of revelation about cultic behavior. Let's keep looking!

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 07:58 AM

QUOTE (Myoho @ Jun 2 2008, 11:25 PM)

Unless you have a Temple Recommend from your local Bishop... you will never see the interior of one of these edifices.

When a new temple is completed, prior to its dedication the temple is open to the public for a week or two. Often tens of thousands of people walk through the temple, so many people are curious about the Mormons. The buildings usually stand out in their neighborhood as befits a House of the Lord. (As did the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.) I heard that before the Los Angeles temple was dedicated many years ago so many people walked through that they had to replace the carpets. Once the temple is dedicated by the Apostles, the only way in is by showing a valid temple recommend at the desk. People waiting for wedding parties etc. who do not have temple recommends have a comfortable lobby to wait in.

Temple recommends are renewed every two years. The process is a worthiness interview with the bishop (equivalent of a Catholic parish priest) and a stake president (equivalent of a Catholic bishop) or one of their two counselors. Nowadays temple recommends are bar encoded and hooked up to computers for better verification.

Anyone can enter a dedicated operating LDS Temple. But they must first enter in at the strait gate of faith in Jesus Christ, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, laying on of hands of the authorized Priesthood for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and a godly worthy walk for at least a year before temple recommend interviews.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 08:13 AM

QUOTE (CowboySteve @ Jun 2 2008, 11:33 PM)

Why is the LDS Church so stridently angry at their former members, accusing them of deception and invention about the church? I have seen it elsewhere. There seems to be no room for someone's belief changing, but rather, there seems to be an oppositional suspicion towards former LDS members. I have not seen this with other denominations. Why?

I disagree with your conclusions. We are not angry with apostates, they are always welcome to repent, forsake their sins, and return. But we WILL tell the TRUTH about our beliefs, which is the thing most apostates will not or cannot do. That should be evident already in this thread.

It is not a light thing to mock God, especially after having had so much of His eternal truths revealed to one. The Book of Mormon records the death of two huge civilizations who were once righteous then in mere decades turned away from God to pride and materialism, lost His spirit and fought each other with millions and millions killed until the entire race was exterminated in civil war and chaos.

I see the same conditions existing in America right now as a once god-fearing people change quickly to secularism and immorality. The Book of Mormon was written as a warning for OUR time. God DOES live. But only those who sincerely seek Him and keep His commandments know Him, others are caught up in a frantic fruitless search for happiness in pleasure, power, and sin. The Judaeo Christian principles that this nation was founded upon and that were adhered to for hundreds of years are what made this nation great. We are now, in my opinion, sinking into the bottomless pit of pride, selfishness, and immoral materialism. There is a way out, but it would require keeping God's commandments, and that is the thing many Americans have abandoned and mock.

RealLiberal1

Jun 3 2008, 08:15 AM

QUOTE (justamere10 @ Jun 3 2008, 07:14 AM)

You ask the same question that Judas Iscariot asked Jesus when he was anointed for his death with expensive oil.

Temples are the House of the Lord. Is anything too good for God? The Saints sacrificed enormously several times in their formational years to build a house of God, as He commanded, because only in those sacred buildings can the apostolic sealing power be excercised to bless God's children eternally. They knew they would soon be driven from their temple by bloodthirsty plundering mobbers, but they listened to God not their fears.

Inside those holy temples takes place the vital work of redeeming the dead and sealing husbands and wives to each other, and their children to them for eternity, as God wants it to be and commanded His Saints to do in these latter days. Families can be forever.

Temple work will continue throughout the Millennium at which time temples will "dot the earth." Those who serve inside God's house do not have their minds on the trappings of this world, temples are functional buildings dedicated to the glory and work of God.

Sounds more like idolatry....which is prohibited, according to the Ten Commandments.
Jesus healed and performed miracles outside the temple...according to the Bible. He didn't build temples, but yet he is your Lord? I find that ironic....and contradictory to his teachings.
We all know that LDS does extensive work in Geneology. This can be accomplished anywhere else and by anyone.

visionari

Jun 3 2008, 08:19 AM

QUOTE (justamere10 @ Jun 3 2008, 07:52 AM)

Indeed there are contradictions in the bible.

So you acknowledge that the Mormons believe some of what is written in the Bible and reject the contradictory parts as being false?

CowboySteve

Jun 3 2008, 08:23 AM

QUOTE (justamere10 @ Jun 3 2008, 05:14 AM)

You ask the same question that Judas Iscariot asked Jesus when he was anointed for his death with expensive oil.(snip)

You mean,

QUOTE (Mt_23)

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

oops, not that one...

QUOTE (Mk_10)

Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.

naw...

QUOTE (Mt_26)

a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, "Why this waste?

That's as close as I can get. It was the "disciples." Judas didn't get a speaking part, except as a crowd.

visionari

Jun 3 2008, 08:25 AM

QUOTE (justamere10 @ Jun 3 2008, 08:05 AM)

Are you equating Latter-day Saints with the blood thirsty human sacrificing Aztecs?

No.
I was merely observing that some of the peoples who have built great monuments throughout history have also done things that we would consider violent and cruel today, and in some cases have done those things in the name of their religion. Building great monuments does not automatically make a people virtuous.

visionari

Jun 3 2008, 08:30 AM

QUOTE (justamere10 @ Jun 3 2008, 07:59 AM)

As I'm sure you are aware, presidential campaigns are all about TEMPORAL office. We are not choosing a pastor or priest or church leader but a USA president. The media sometimes brings undue pressure on the candidates with regards to their religious affiliation and beliefs. My guess is that Mitt Romney responded as best he thought he could in that light, he's a politician.

Do Mormons believe that God's message to humankind is to be taken from a literal reading of the Bible, or do Mormons accept that many parts of the Bible are to be interpreted allegorically?

RealLiberal1

Jun 3 2008, 08:34 AM

When I witness ANY Christian church organization that builds more missions THAN temples/places of worship, I will not be as critical.
They're building temples from untaxed revenue to create theocratic mini-communities and justifying this brand of idolatry with God's word.
There are more temples than missions...why is that??

Seeker1

Jun 3 2008, 08:46 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 3 2008, 08:55 AM)

Do Mormons believe that God's message to humankind is to be taken from a literal reading of the Bible, or do Mormons accept that many parts of the Bible are to be interpreted allegorically?

The problem is, unlike most other Christians, there are two texts they draw upon. So to me the more interesting question is not just whether they take a literal reading of the Bible (many fundamentalists do), but do they read the Book of Mormon literally?

Because, and I hate to say this, but speaking from the point of view of archaeology, the Book of Mormon tells a story of the peopling of this continent that is not true. Native Americans do not show any linguistic, genetic, or artefactual evidence that they came from Semitic countries. In fact, Native Americans were here to North America 25,000 years ago, when there were no Hebrews or Canaanites.

I think it could be interesting as an allegory... one of the things I have noted from doing research with Native people here in the U.S. is that they are actively proselytized by the Mormons, because seeking their "redemption" is considered the most important. Almost every Native reservation in the West has an active Mormon church.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 08:58 AM

QUOTE (Myoho @ Jun 2 2008, 11:38 PM)

I don't know Cowboy... however, I have ALWAYS heard they are in cahoots with the Masons. I cannot verify this.

Joseph Smith was a mason. But I think Latter-day Saints were once banned from membership in the Masons, by the Masons, not sure?? I saw a news article recently that a Latter-day Saint was elected or appointed the grand poobah or whatever of Masonic lodges in Utah, that was a first.

I've never been a Mason, there are obviously some LDS who are Masons, and I think a lot who are Rotarians. But the Church is not "in cahoots" with the Masons as our resident unreliable source about Mormon religious beliefs and practices suggests we are, with respect of course to his right to have his own beliefs and opinions about anything.

CowboySteve

Jun 3 2008, 09:00 AM

QUOTE (justamere10 @ Jun 3 2008, 06:38 AM)

I disagree with your conclusions. We are not angry with apostates, they are always welcome to repent, forsake their sins, and return. But we WILL tell the TRUTH about our beliefs, which is the thing most apostates will not or cannot do. That should be evident already in this thread.

No, you don't seem to leave the apostate members alone, and call them liars. Aren't there any members who can be left alone when they leave the LDS church? Several of the people who you have insulted are people whose statements and opinions are well-known to us on the RRMB, as reliable, sober and well-reasoned, and always truthful. Am I to believe that they will tell the truth, except about the LDS Church when they always lie?

QUOTE

It is not a light thing to mock God, especially after having had so much of His eternal truths revealed to one. The Book of Mormon records the death of two huge civilizations who were once righteous then in mere decades turned away from God to pride and materialism, lost His spirit and fought each other with millions and millions killed until the entire race was exterminated in civil war and chaos.

Again, the inference that criticism is blasphemy. This goes far beyond a church member formally rejecting dogma, but seems to touch on any questioning, concern or inference regarding the absolute validity of all beliefs. Many religions differentiate dogma - what is required to be affirmed, such as articles of faith - from magisterium - teachings of the Church which derive from dogma, but are not dogma themselves - from simple scholarly opinion, which has no religious imperative.

In addition, the Book of Mormon purports the existence of two huge civilizations which fought with each other, with millions of dead, and civil war and chaos ensuing. There is absolutely no anthropological, archeological, or any sort of evidence whatsoever for this sort of event having taken place. It is analogous to saying "Africa had a great civilization until all of its cities were destroyed by thermonuclear war in 10,000 BC." That is rubbish - there would be plenty of evidence for such things. And if obedient faith is necessary to believe what is not real, then faith is being misused for the purposes of degrading God's children, sorry.

QUOTE

I see the same conditions existing in America right now as a once god-fearing people change quickly to secularism and immorality. The Book of Mormon was written as a warning for OUR time. God DOES live. But only those who sincerely seek Him and keep His commandments know Him, others are caught up in a frantic fruitless search for happiness in pleasure, power, and sin. The Judaeo Christian principles that this nation was founded upon and that were adhered to for hundreds of years are what made this nation great. We are now, in my opinion, sinking into the bottomless pit of pride, selfishness, and immoral materialism. There is a way out, but it would require keeping God's commandments, and that is the thing many Americans have abandoned and mock.

The metaphor for the ancient mystic cities of North America is an interesting issue for the LDS/Mormon Church. One common factor to all literate civilization is the despair by the elders about the decline of the civilization, now that it is passing off to less-worthy hands.

Perhaps the United States is in decline, but perhaps it is due to its loss of its originating principles - those of equality, respect, reason and common-sense, freedom and decency - that
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
If we have fallen prey to the irrational mysticism, fear and blind obedience of the Dark Ages re-written, one can look no further in the search for our degeneracy, than the very religions which arose on our shores, founded by Americans, joined by Americans - the only true American Religion, LDS. I am sorry that the LDS Church has such a paranoid posture, clearly bent by its persecution at the hands of American non-Mormons early in its years - and that sort of persecution is just as offensive to the principles of freedom, reason and decency as any other awful thing which has happened between our shores since our founding. But that is the reason I see for the "decline in America," and the LDS weighs in more on the side of the problem than the solution.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 09:02 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 2 2008, 11:40 PM)

Myoho, there was a documentary on the Mormons on PBS, I think, last year. Did you happen to see it?
They showed rooms from what I believe were temples (or a temple), including a baptismal pool.

I don't recall seeing that. The LDS Church is open to cooperate with media but quite often an invalid out of context spin is put on the Church and its leaders. I guess sensationalism and conflict whether its real or not sells newspapers...

Every LDS temple has a baptismal font below ground level resting on the backs of twelve oxen symbolic of the 12 tribes of Israel.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 09:08 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 2 2008, 11:43 PM)

It would seem that a believer would come to the conclusion that the only way someone who has "seen the light" could subsequently change his mind would be under the influence of Satan or one of his minions. And surely Satan would want to try to break the church.

I already commented on this but yes, I agree, Satan will do everything he can to oppose truth wherever it rears its beautiful head, and specifically to try to hinder the work of God to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

We believe that during the coming Millennium Satan will be locked up in a place where he and his dark angels can no longer tempt God's children on earth. He knows that and is frantic to do everything he can to deceive and drag souls down to his level forever while he still has some time. We will see more and more 'miracles' wrought by his servants and false christs appear as we advance towards the final stages before the righteous and the wicked are separated and this earth takes a leap forward to a Garden of Eden state.

visionari

Jun 3 2008, 09:09 AM

You can see the documentary (or images from it, at any rate) here. Click on part II at the bottom right to see the segment where the temple(s) is shown.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 09:12 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 3 2008, 12:01 AM)

I recall watching 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace interviewing Gordon Hinckley. Hinckley said that the sacred undergarments do protect the wearer from harm, and that he knew this from personal experience (his legs were burned in an accident, but only in areas that were not covered by the undergarments).

Do most Mormons actually believe that the garments protect them by their divine nature from physical bodily harm?
If they do, how do the Mormons account for people who are injured, even killed in accidents, while wearing the garments?

Most Mormons who wear temple clothing do not believe that it will protect them from physical harm. That should be obvious as many temple clothing wearing Mormons are involved in accidents, some fatal, just the same as others. I do think some people have that faith though, and faith is an extremely powerful principle. So, the cloth protect? No, I don't think so. The faith protect for those who believe? Maybe sometimes. Just my opinions.

The temple clothing is worn for a spiritual purpose, to remind us of sacred covenants we made with God in sacred temples.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 09:19 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 3 2008, 12:29 AM)

Yes, they showed something that looked like that.

So does that mean it's ok for the public to be allowed to see images of the temple, even if they cannot enter the temple?
Or would those images have just been either images of fakes made explicitly for the purpose of educating the public or images of temples taken during the open house?

I'm not sure at this point if you are addressing your questions to me or to someone else, but I'll go ahead and respond.

There are many photos available from the LDS Church of the inside of temples. After the open house the temples are brought up to the original condition prior to tens of thousands of people walking through, they are dedicated, and put into operation.

CowboySteve

Jun 3 2008, 09:28 AM

QUOTE (justamere10 @ Jun 3 2008, 07:33 AM)

I already commented on this but yes, I agree, Satan will do everything he can to oppose truth wherever it rears its beautiful head, and specifically to try to hinder the work of God to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

The point is not whether the LDS is being theologically inconsistent about apostates, any more than it has been theologically consistent about the other races:

QUOTE

Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.''

(Joseph Smith)

QUOTE

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

(Brigham Young)

QUOTE

..after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation a upon a the earth as well as God;..

(John Taylor)

Now, I can understand these voices as containing the racism of America at their time. And no, I do not think that a devoted Mormon sniper will try to "extinguish the seed" of Mr. Obama under the law of God. But it certainly does cause one to infer that racial issues have been present in the church. The same measure is there for apostasy. I cannot refute the LDS/Mormon dogma that Black people are the representatives of the Devil upon Earth - that is dogma, axiomatic, and thus irrefutable within the Mormon Church. But I can point out the actions of the LDS church which might be affected by these axioms.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 09:34 AM

QUOTE (madame-defarge @ Jun 3 2008, 05:12 AM)

Justa,

I find it interesting that you are so judgemental about other peoples's pains and conflicts when it comes to your church. You've belittled the two people, good people, whom I mentioned. You're now calling Myoho deceptive when they're telling you/testifying to all of us their experience (and I'm sure you'll do the same with leftcoast). Hmm...

You can judge what I write however you want to, but I feel it my responsibility to teach the TRUTH about Mormons as most active informed mainstream Mormons understand it to be. Not every Latter-day Saint has the same knowledge and experience as others have, that applies as well to members of all churches and other entities. I've been an active Latter-day Saint for more than 40 years. There's not much that I don't know about that subject though I haven't mastered the canon and am not a scholar or historian.

I rub shoulders with Mormons daily, attend temple and other activities, have attended thousands of meetings, and have served a foreign mission. I KNOW the Mormons. If they were not good and of God, I would not be one of them.

If an apostate or anyone for that matter wants to teach about the LDS church and the religious beliefs and practices of its mainstream members they certainly have the right to do so, as do I to provide a sometimes contrasting point of view from the weight of my experience and current standing. I expect that most thinking persons will consider the fact that apostates from any church might be embittered and have an ax to grind. Most apostates from the LDS Church have been excommunicated because they choose to consistently commit serious sins against God, in most cases sexual sins. The way of repentance is always available, and some follow that path.

The choice is always yours to decide who to believe and who not to believe, I'm just providing another selection.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 09:45 AM

QUOTE (RealLiberal1 @ Jun 3 2008, 06:40 AM)

Sounds more like idolatry....which is prohibited, according to the Ten Commandments.
Jesus healed and performed miracles outside the temple...according to the Bible. He didn't build temples, but yet he is your Lord? I find that ironic....and contradictory to his teachings.
We all know that LDS does extensive work in Geneology. This can be accomplished anywhere else and by anyone.

If obeying God's commandments and helping with the work He does to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children is "idolatry" in your eyes, then so be it, for you.

There are some ordinances that must take place on earth. God has provided His own way and place for that work to be done.

leftcoastfarmer

Jun 3 2008, 09:51 AM

QUOTE (CowboySteve @ Jun 3 2008, 05:25 AM)

No, you don't seem to leave the apostate members alone, and call them liars. Aren't there any members who can be left alone when they leave the LDS church? Several of the people who you have insulted are people whose statements and opinions are well-known to us on the RRMB, as reliable, sober and well-reasoned, and always truthful. Am I to believe that they will tell the truth, except about the LDS Church when they always lie?

Again, the inference that criticism is blasphemy. This goes far beyond a church member formally rejecting dogma, but seems to touch on any questioning, concern or inference regarding the absolute validity of all beliefs. Many religions differentiate dogma - what is required to be affirmed, such as articles of faith - from magisterium - teachings of the Church which derive from dogma, but are not dogma themselves - from simple scholarly opinion, which has no religious imperative.

In addition, the Book of Mormon purports the existence of two huge civilizations which fought with each other, with millions of dead, and civil war and chaos ensuing. There is absolutely no anthropological, archeological, or any sort of evidence whatsoever for this sort of event having taken place. It is analogous to saying "Africa had a great civilization until all of its cities were destroyed by thermonuclear war in 10,000 BC." That is rubbish - there would be plenty of evidence for such things. And if obedient faith is necessary to believe what is not real, then faith is being misused for the purposes of degrading God's children, sorry.

The metaphor for the ancient mystic cities of North America is an interesting issue for the LDS/Mormon Church. One common factor to all literate civilization is the despair by the elders about the decline of the civilization, now that it is passing off to less-worthy hands.

Perhaps the United States is in decline, but perhaps it is due to its loss of its originating principles - those of equality, respect, reason and common-sense, freedom and decency - that
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
If we have fallen prey to the irrational mysticism, fear and blind obedience of the Dark Ages re-written, one can look no further in the search for our degeneracy, than the very religions which arose on our shores, founded by Americans, joined by Americans - the only true American Religion, LDS. I am sorry that the LDS Church has such a paranoid posture, clearly bent by its persecution at the hands of American non-Mormons early in its years - and that sort of persecution is just as offensive to the principles of freedom, reason and decency as any other awful thing which has happened between our shores since our founding. But that is the reason I see for the "decline in America," and the LDS weighs in more on the side of the problem than the solution.

succinctly spoken.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 09:54 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 3 2008, 06:44 AM)

So you acknowledge that the Mormons believe some of what is written in the Bible and reject the contradictory parts as being false?

The bible is in our canon and is equal to the Book of Mormon Another Testament of Jesus Christ. However, it seems logical that over the thousands of years of transation, retranslation, etc. some errors exist in the bible we have today.

We're not rejecting the bible, but we keep in mind the possibility of error. The Book of Mormon was translated much more recently and there are living apostles and prophets to keep God's Church in conformance with His mind and will for His children in today's environment. Some small changes have been made to the Book of Mormon over the years, most of them to correct printer's errors and to conform with careful scrutiny of the original Joseph Smith papers. Nothing doctrinal has been changed.

Recently the title of The Book of Mormon was changed to add the words "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". This may have been motivated partially by the faddish notion among some Christian denominations that members of The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints whose every religious moment is centered on Jesus Christ and his teachings are not Christian, but they are.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 09:58 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 3 2008, 06:50 AM)

No.
I was merely observing that some of the peoples who have built great monuments throughout history have also done things that we would consider violent and cruel today, and in some cases have done those things in the name of their religion. Building great monuments does not automatically make a people virtuous.

I never thought that LDS temples were considered "great monuments". That's interesting. Those who serve within in them would not think so.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 10:03 AM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 3 2008, 06:55 AM)

Do Mormons believe that God's message to humankind is to be taken from a literal reading of the Bible, or do Mormons accept that many parts of the Bible are to be interpreted allegorically?

My opinion is that we would lean towards literal, but the Lord spoke in parables, and many Christians seem to have their own interpretation of every verse in the bible. That's why it is so vital in my opinion that there be LIVING apostles and prophets to speak God's word to man as they did anciently.

The LDS canon includes other books of scripture. Put all that plus living prophets together and you can get a much better understanding of what's written in the bible.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 10:09 AM

QUOTE (RealLiberal1 @ Jun 3 2008, 06:59 AM)

When I witness ANY Christian church organization that builds more missions THAN temples/places of worship, I will not be as critical.
They're building temples from untaxed revenue to create theocratic mini-communities and justifying this brand of idolatry with God's word.
There are more temples than missions...why is that??

Every church has certain tax benefits, as do corporations and other entities. Most of the revenue the LDS Church has is from the tithing of members who pay taxes the same way other people do.

At any given time there are about 50,000 LDS missionaries serving full-time for 18 to 24 months all over the world where it is legal for them to live and serve. They serve without pay and pay their own expenses including housing, food, and clothing.

I won't take the time to check but there are probably as many LDS missions as there are temples. You can look for the figures at http://www.lds.org perhaps in the newsroom.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 10:20 AM

QUOTE (Seeker1 @ Jun 3 2008, 07:11 AM)

The problem is, unlike most other Christians, there are two texts they draw upon. So to me the more interesting question is not just whether they take a literal reading of the Bible (many fundamentalists do), but do they read the Book of Mormon literally?

Because, and I hate to say this, but speaking from the point of view of archaeology, the Book of Mormon tells a story of the peopling of this continent that is not true. Native Americans do not show any linguistic, genetic, or artefactual evidence that they came from Semitic countries. In fact, Native Americans were here to North America 25,000 years ago, when there were no Hebrews or Canaanites.

I think it could be interesting as an allegory... one of the things I have noted from doing research with Native people here in the U.S. is that they are actively proselytized by the Mormons, because seeking their "redemption" is considered the most important. Almost every Native reservation in the West has an active Mormon church.

Proof of the Book of Mormon is spiritual, so professional LDS archaelogists, although LDS owned Brigham Young University has had a presence in Mexico since the 1950's, are not looking for evidence of Nephites. In fact they wouldn't know how to recognize a Nephite artifact if they stumbled over one! However, over the past few years an interesting "Mesoamerican" theory of Book of Mormon geography has been emerging from Book of Mormon scholars as a matter of interest and the advancement of knowledge, not a matter of trying to prove the Book of Mormon true.

I recommend a visit to the following website for those who are interested in that:

http://www.mormonsites.org

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 10:31 AM

QUOTE (CowboySteve @ Jun 3 2008, 07:53 AM)

I cannot refute the LDS/Mormon dogma that Black people are the representatives of the Devil upon Earth - that is dogma, axiomatic, and thus irrefutable within the Mormon Church. But I can point out the actions of the LDS church which might be affected by these axioms.

Latter-day Saints are bound by their canon, not by the comments and opinions of Church leaders who may or may not have been speaking for the Lord when their comments were recorded or reported by someone. It is common for LDS critics to reach into myriads of writings and pull out things they then try to impose on the entire church and its members regardless of sometimes hundreds or thousands of other comments that provide the real context.

We do not believe that "Black people" are representatives of the devil. There have been black members of our church since the early 1800's, including all through the years when other churches were routinely segregating by skin color.

visionari

Jun 3 2008, 10:57 AM

Do Mormons dispute that the statements quoted in post #234 were made by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor?
(Feel free to state which statements Mormons living today deny and which they believe were actually said/written by those early leaders of the church.)

leftcoastfarmer

Jun 3 2008, 11:08 AM

QUOTE (justamere10 @ Jun 3 2008, 06:56 AM)

Latter-day Saints are bound by their canon, not by the comments and opinions of Church leaders who may or may not have been speaking for the Lord when their comments were recorded or reported by someone. It is common for LDS critics to reach into myriads of writings and pull out things they then try to impose on the entire church and its members regardless of sometimes hundreds or thousands of other comments that provide the real context.

We do not believe that "Black people" are representatives of the devil. There have been black members of our church since the early 1800's, including all through the years when other churches were routinely segregating by skin color.

ever read the journal of discourses?

were blacks full members - full priesthood holders? Allowed to fully participate in all aspects?

visionari

Jun 3 2008, 11:34 AM

Many Christians, like members of other religious groups, believe that in the eyes of God there are certain sex acts which are sacred and others which are profane. (We all know the origins of the term "missionary position.")

Does the Mormon faith as understood by present-day church members prohibit specific sex acts between a legally-married man and wife? (If so, which ones?)
Or are any acts that they mutually choose to engage in fair game?

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 12:02 PM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 3 2008, 09:22 AM)

Do Mormons dispute that the statements quoted in post #234 were made by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor?
(Feel free to state which statements Mormons living today deny and which they believe were actually said/written by those early leaders of the church.)

Most Latter-day Saints spend time studying the scriptures. Journals of church leaders are not scripture.

I honestly don't know if those statements are accurate and in context or not. It is quite possible that someone did hear that from the mouth of the person the quote is accredited to, and wrote it down. If the quotes are accurate they are still not doctrine, and even more especially so if they conflict with possibly years of opposing teachings from the same person. I admitted several times that I am not a historian, I can tell you about the current mainstream beliefs of the Latter-day Saints.

There is an unofficial but generally reliable website that covers that kind of thing if anyone is genuinely interested:

http://www.fairlds.org

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 12:15 PM

QUOTE (leftcoastfarmer @ Jun 3 2008, 09:33 AM)

ever read the journal of discourses?

were blacks full members - full priesthood holders? Allowed to fully participate in all aspects?

I have not read the Journals of Discourses but I did many years ago read through the many volumes of LDS Church History.

Apparently some blacks received the priesthood in the early days of the Church before God revealed that it was not yet the time (for His own reasons) for them to be priesthood holders. But many blacks continued to be active members of the LDS Church except that none were allowed to participate inside the temples, and males were not able to take part in priesthood ordinances. That was very difficult for many members of the Church who came to know and love their black brothers and sisters as well as those of any other skin color. Some prophets agonized over it, but God moves in mysterious ways sometimes, His wonders to perform.

In 1978 President Kimball I think it was spent much time fasting and praying in the temple on behalf of those with black skin. Finally, a glorious revelation came from the Lord that it was now time for all of God's children who qualified to enter the temples. Worthy black males were soon after that revelation ordained to priesthood offices and took up the same responsibilities others take. That continues to this day.

When I first heard of that announcement I was driving on a busy highway. I immediately teared up with joy so much that I had to pull over and weep for a while before I could gather my composure. I think many other Latter-day Saints felt the same way and some may have had similar experiences upon hearing of the revelation. There are now temples and a huge number of Latter-day Saints in Africa.

But during all of the USA years of segregation even in churches, black members of the LDS Church were right there in our meetinghouses, mingling with their fellow brothers and sisters of all skin color.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 12:22 PM

QUOTE (visionari @ Jun 3 2008, 09:59 AM)

Many Christians, like members of other religious groups, believe that in the eyes of God there are certain sex acts which are sacred and others which are profane. (We all know the origins of the term "missionary position.")

Does the Mormon faith as understood by present-day church members prohibit specific sex acts between a legally-married man and wife? (If so, which ones?)
Or are any acts that they mutually choose to engage in fair game?

There are often rumors etc. in circulation about such things as you ask about. But Church leaders tend to leave things like that between the married couple and the Lord. If someone was trying to force their spouse to do something they didn't want to do, some counsel from their bishop might be considered in order. Some other Latter-day Saints might disagree, but I know of no revelation or written counsel from the Senior Brethren of the LDS Church that prohibits married people from engaging in mutually satisfying sexual behavior. Sexual relations outside of marriage of course are considered serious sins against God.

justamere10

Jun 3 2008, 12:39 PM

The following describes the sustaining of the revelation to allow all qualified worthy members of the LDS Church to enter the temples, and males to hold the priesthood.

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—2

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978 To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world: Dear Brethren: As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign. The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative. Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.