Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 61 of 264 (64112)
11-03-2003 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
11-03-2003 8:11 AM


Just so you know did you read this I dont want you to think I am a wasteful fool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 11-03-2003 8:11 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 62 of 264 (64115)
11-03-2003 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by theOtter
11-02-2003 4:32 PM


Re: Some answers (quite long)
quote:
I fully recognize that there are two sides to every story,
Actually, I would say that there are many more than two, usually.
That's sort of my point.
quote:
and I see nothing wrong with ?spinning history? in my own favor if everyone else on this board seems bent on spinning it against me.
We aren't against you. We are against spin in gerneral. What we are after is accuracy.
That's why it is important to get your information from as many sources as possible and not just rely on the believers to tell you things. Nobody but the Mormons thinks that J. Smith really found anything in NY, because there is no evidence that he did. Sorry, but that's just the truth. There isn't any confirming credible evidence.
Take note of what you just said; "and I see nothing wrong with ?spinning history? in my own favor."
Why? Why do you EVER think it's OK to spin history?
quote:
However, I think it?s very dangerous to assume that anyone can be a completely objective observer.
I agree completely.
That's why it's very important to not just believe what you are told just because you like how it sounds. It is vitally important to look for as much disconfirming evidence as you can find.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by theOtter, posted 11-02-2003 4:32 PM theOtter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 12:14 PM nator has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 63 of 264 (64129)
11-03-2003 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by theOtter
11-03-2003 6:44 AM


Descended from Cain
There is a much simpler answer of course. With the Bibilical small population bottleneck and millenia for crossing families we are ALL descended from Cain. There can't be much likelyhood of anything else. Any other idea is silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 6:44 AM theOtter has not replied

  
theOtter
Inactive Junior Member


Message 64 of 264 (64154)
11-03-2003 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by nator
11-03-2003 8:36 AM


Re: Some answers
quote:
Don't you think it's a bit naieve to look at these kinds of big changes to LDS doctrine as Godly "directions" when they "just happen" to coincide with strong political or social pressure which would make the church look bad (racist) or break the law (plural marriage)?
No, actually. The whole point of continuous revelation is that God lets his prophets know what needs to be done today. I’d actually consider it much more nave to think that God would give revelations pretty much at random without any regard for what His children want and/or need at the time.
quote:
I have spoken to several mormon women about the fact that no women can attain priesthood or any authority in the Church
I’d be interested to know where they got that idea. There are plenty of women in the Church who hold Priesthood authority and use it on a daily basisand there have been since the days of Joseph Smith Jr. Anyone who says otherwise is, once again, sorely mistaken.
quote:
How many female church officials are there that have general authority similar to, and over, males?
Quite a few, actually. When I was a Primary teacher, I served under a female Primary President. In certain missions, elders serve under female district and zone leaders. In our weekly youth group, the Young Men (most of whom hold the Priesthood) and Young Women take turns being in charge of the meetings. And in every General Conference, I listen to female General Officers of the Church speaking right alongside the male ones. And that’s pretty much the way it’s always been. I’m still not getting this misogyny you keep talking about.
quote:
I have spoken to several mormon people about racism and homophobia, and they have all used the, "surely some people in the Church will hold these views; it would be expected in any large organisation." line.
That is pretty odd. I’ve actually never heard anyone else say that. Most, unfortunately, just dismiss the possibility that any Latter-day Saint could hold those kinds of views. On the other hand, let’s consider those that did hold those views. You also have to remember that hindsight is 20/20. If I were a Latter-day Saint living in 1960s Louisiana, I’d probably still call Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. some rather unflattering names. Being LDS doesn’t necessarily protect a person from buying into the prevailing thoughts of the day.
An example: my great-great-grandfather (not LDS, but a good example anyway) had one of the largest plantations in South Carolina and more slaves than he could shake a stick at. Does that make him a bad person? Of course not. He just went with what his parents taught him was right, and he was probably never challenged on the subject. If anybody’s to blame for that one, it’s the moron who came up with the concept of slavery in the first place.
quote:
It's just scary that you are all taught what to say, and that you all learn it so well and don't seem to even think anything you aren't supposed to think, and that you all say very nearly the exact same words!
I agree. The Church encourages people to think for themselves, but you often see people doing just the opposite. One could argue that there’s an element of brainwashing to all religions, but practiceeven practice by a great majoritydoesn’t make policy.
As for not thinking things we aren’t supposed to think, I’m the wrong person to accuse there. I actually disagree with the First Presidency on several issues, and I’ve written several letters to Church headquarters letting them know my views. That’s how revelation often comes about: somebody asked a question. Even a casual reading of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church will bring up several examples of people who disagreed with the Prophet Joseph Smith and turned out to be right. Some of the most basic doctrines of the Church came up because someone disagreed with something Joseph was doing, and when he (Joseph) took it to the Lord, it turned out the Lord wasn’t too happy with it either!
So if thinking the wrong things is such a problem, why is it that I’m still a member in good standing and even hold a valid Temple recommend?
quote:
Why? Why do you EVER think it's OK to spin history?
I don’t. That was actually my point. All I’m saying is that it’s important to get all the views. That’s why I’ve read numerous anti-Mormon books, and every one of them has just confirmed what I already know: the Church is true. Remember, I haven’t always been LDS. And while I know that many who join the Church get by on blind faith, the Church strongly cautions against it. I joined the Church based on faith; I have remained a member of the Church not only due to faith, but also due to the overwhelming evidence of the veracity thereof.
Take The Book of Mormon, for example. There are literally thousands of things found in its pages (pre-Columbian horses in America, Jewish men named Alma, large battles in upstate New York, etc. ad infinitum) that were considered laughable at the time of its initial publication but have been corroborated by LDS and non-LDS archologists alike. There are entire organizations dedicated to the study of Book of Mormon archology (BYU’s FARMS is a perfect example, and they’re constantly finding enough to keep them goingboth financially and otherwise). True, most of these archologists are members of the Church (or wind up becoming members of the Church), but that’s to be expected. If the Book of Mormon is archologically correct, it pretty much has to be spiritually correct. There’s not much room for error there. While the Biblewhich has been passed down through the centuriesholds the possibility of historical accuracy and nothing more, The Book of Mormon was either translated by a higher power or it wasn’t. There’s no in between on that one.
And finally
quote:
I did ask God. Nothing happened.
Did you follow the instructions? (They’re in the Bible, too.)
------------------
Death is not extinguishing
the light; it is putting out
the lamp because dawn
has come.
Rabindranath Tagore

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 11-03-2003 8:36 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by nator, posted 11-04-2003 5:43 PM theOtter has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 264 (64158)
11-03-2003 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by theOtter
11-03-2003 6:44 AM


Before the revelation of 1978, this including determininghopefully through revelationdescendancy from Cain.
So what you're saying is, they just pick who is "decended from Cain", that is, who doesn't get to be a priest, based on "revelation", which could just simply be "who don't they like." No surprise that it turns out to be mostly black people who are decended from Cain.
I mean how would you determine the difference between somebody who was deciding who was decended from Cain based on actual revelation from God; and who was just deciding based on who they did and didn't like? Do you just trust god not to let that happen?
This looks like just a big, involved justification for institutionalized racism. It's like spiritual racial profiling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 6:44 AM theOtter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 12:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
theOtter
Inactive Junior Member


Message 66 of 264 (64160)
11-03-2003 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by nator
11-03-2003 8:01 AM


Re: Some answers (quite long)
quote:
Don't you think it's a bit naieve to look at these kinds of big changes to LDS doctrine as Godly "directions" when they "just happen" to coincide with strong political or social pressure which would make the church look bad (racist) or break the law (plural marriage)?
Oh, one more thing: you’re neglecting the fact that the doctrines have never changed.
The doctrine of marriage, for example, has always been that unless God gives an individual specific permission to do otherwise, s/he may only be married to one other person (unless, of course, they are separated by death). Every major volume of scripture (i.e. the Bible, The Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church) speaks out against polygamy; it’s just that God knowsand has every right to decidewhen exceptions need to be made.
Likewise, the doctrine of the Priesthood has always been that the Priesthood is only to be given to those whom God has chosen at that time. For a while it was only Levites, for a while it was every male that wasn’t a Canaanite. In each of these cases, certain requirements of worthiness were to be met. However, if God felt like it, He could give Priesthood authority to every person on the planet and the doctrine wouldn’t have changed a bit.
------------------
Death is not extinguishing
the light; it is putting out
the lamp because dawn
has come.
Rabindranath Tagore

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by nator, posted 11-03-2003 8:01 AM nator has not replied

  
theOtter
Inactive Junior Member


Message 67 of 264 (64163)
11-03-2003 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
11-03-2003 12:23 PM


quote:
How would you determine the difference between somebody who was deciding who was decended from Cain based on actual revelation from God; and who was just deciding based on who they did and didn't like?
The same way that person should be deciding: through revelation. The stake president presides over the bishop; the area president presides over the stake president; the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles presides over the area president; the First Presidency presides over the Quorum of the Twelve.
And if all those people are corrupt, I think the world has a much bigger problem than whether or not some schmuck in Sheboygan holds the Priesthood.
------------------
Death is not extinguishing
the light; it is putting out
the lamp because dawn
has come.
Rabindranath Tagore

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2003 12:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2003 12:35 PM theOtter has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 264 (64164)
11-03-2003 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by theOtter
11-03-2003 12:31 PM


The same way that person should be deciding: through revelation.
Well, you haven't really solved the problem. You've just passed it on, because you still have the same problem: how do you tell the difference between revelation and lying?
How can you even tell the difference between genuine revelation and lying to yourself? After all racists aren't racist because they wake up one day and say "hey, I'm going to start trating black folks like crap." They do what they do because, at a deep level, it just feels right to them to do so.
You can call it "revelation". I call it "acting on your pre-existing predjudices." I ask you how it could ever be possible to tell the difference. This is a problem of all religions, of course, and not just the LDS. (What would you prefer as the proper address for your faith? Mormonism? MC of JC of LDS?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 12:31 PM theOtter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 1:05 PM crashfrog has replied

  
theOtter
Inactive Junior Member


Message 69 of 264 (64170)
11-03-2003 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
11-03-2003 12:35 PM


quote:
What would you prefer as the proper address for your faith? Mormonism? MC of JC of LDS?
Well, ideally it would just be called Christianity,but we all know that with as many denominations that profess belief in Jesus Christ, that would get pretty confusing pretty quickly.
The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Note the hyphen and lowercase d; there’s also a Wisconsin-based group that apostatized about 160 years agothey currently have about 200 membersthat calls itself The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Strange, I know, but true.) You will note that nowhere in that name will you find the word Mormon, which in this sense, is really just a nickname applied to members of the Church by the same mobs that murdered them by the hundreds. (These are the same people who got Mormonism declared a capital offense in Missouri until 1974. How’s that for separation of church and state?)
Anyway, LDS is a great abbreviation. The name of the Church simply means that it is the literal Church of Jesus Christ, the members of which are Latter-day Saints (using the New Testament definition of the word saint,which simply means a follower of Jesus Christ). In other words, the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ; the members are Latter-day Saints.
So where does Mormon come into all this? Well, frankly, nowhere. Mormon was a prophet who lived ca. A.D. 310-385. He compiled the records of his people (the Nephites), one of several groups of people that inhabited the ancient Americas. Near the end of his life, he abridged these records into a single volume, now known as The Book of Mormon (just like many Biblical books are named for their principal authors).
With respect to your other question
quote:
How can you even tell the difference between genuine revelation and lying to yourself?
that’s not something I can answer for you. I’ve learned the difference over the past dozen years, but it’s a very personal thing. It’s kind of like trying to explain what salt tastes like (a comparison I cannot take credit for, but still a valid one): let’s imagine I’d never tasted salt. You can try to tell me what salt tastes like until you’re blue in the face, but until I’ve actually tasted it myself, I’ll never really know.
If you really want to know if what I’m saying is true, the best thing I can recommend is that you get yourself a free copy of The Book of Mormon and put Moroni’s promise to the test. I promise you there’s a difference between revelation and lying to oneselfbelieve me, I’ve lied to myself often enough to knowbut unless you find out for yourself, there’s nothing I can say that will change your mind. (And if there was, I probably wouldn’t say it; it’s not my mind to change.)
------------------
Death is not extinguishing the light; it is putting out the lamp because dawn has come.
Rabindranath Tagore
[This message has been edited by theOtter, 11-03-2003]
[This message has been edited by theOtter, 11-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2003 12:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2003 4:03 PM theOtter has not replied
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2003 9:49 AM theOtter has not replied
 Message 85 by nator, posted 11-04-2003 5:58 PM theOtter has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 70 of 264 (64199)
11-03-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by theOtter
11-03-2003 6:44 AM


Re: Some answers (quite long)
What you are not saying is that negro blood WAS held as being evidence of descent from Cain. Indeed the black skin was held to be "the Mark of Cain".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 6:44 AM theOtter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 4:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 71 of 264 (64200)
11-03-2003 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by theOtter
11-03-2003 1:05 PM


Well I've tried Moroni's promise as best I can and I did not get any sort of sign that the Book of Mormon is at all true.
But then again, despite FARM's apologetics archaeology has not found any of the BoM civilisaitosn and it is quite apparent form the text where and when it was written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 1:05 PM theOtter has not replied

  
theOtter
Inactive Junior Member


Message 72 of 264 (64204)
11-03-2003 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by PaulK
11-03-2003 4:00 PM


Re: Some answers
quote:
What you are not saying is that negro blood WAS held as being evidence of descent from Cain. Indeed the black skin was held to be "the Mark of Cain".
PaulK, you’re welcome to believe whatever you want to believe. Yes, the mark of Cain was a skin of blackness. We’ve firmly established that. Furthermore, I think we’ve also established that not giving the Priesthood to the descendants of Cain was never discriminatory, just like it wasn’t discriminatory for the early Jews to deny the Priesthood to anyone who wasn’t the firstborn son in their family and a descendant of Aaron besides. It’s just a way for an all-wise Heavenly Fatherwho I personally believe put each of us in our specific families for a reasonto help His less-than-omnipotent children know who he wants to be acting in His name. And when it comes right down to it, that’s all the Priesthood is: it’s not any power or authority or anything of the sort for the individual who holds it; it’s just the responsibility to act on behalf of God.
Regardless, as I think I’ve explained quite fully already, not all black-skinned people are descended from Cain, and even before 1978, any righteous maneven a black manthat wasn’t of Canaanite descent could be called to the Priesthood.
quote:
Well I've tried Moroni's promise as best I can and I did not get any sort of sign that the Book of Mormon is at all true.
Well, PaulK, I’m sorry about that. How much of the Book have you read?
quote:
But then again, despite FARM's apologetics archaeology has not found any of the BoM civilisation
I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about here. There have been thousands of digs supporting The Book of Mormon, many of them by people who know nothing of The Church of Jesus Christ. Have you ever actually studied BoM archology?
quote:
and it is quite apparent form the text where and when it was written.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, either. Is the it in this sentence referring to The Book of Mormon? If so, when and where are you saying it was written, and what leads you to believe this?
Awaiting your reply
------------------
Death is not extinguishing
the light; it is putting out
the lamp because dawn
has come.
Rabindranath Tagore

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2003 4:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2003 5:12 PM theOtter has replied
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2003 9:51 AM theOtter has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 73 of 264 (64206)
11-03-2003 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by theOtter
11-03-2003 4:35 PM


Re: Some answers
The fact is that negroes used to be banned from the priesthood on the spurious grounds that their skin colour was a sign of descent from Cain.
I have in fact read most of the Book of Mormon but the poor imitation of Jacobean English was very wearing. I would have thought that a divinely inspired translation could have managed rather better.
And it's not the case that there have been hundreds - or even one dig - in the Americas confirming the Book of Mormon.
And yes it is quite apparent from the Book of Mormon that the text in it's current form dated from after the time the "Golden Plates" were supposedly discovered. The American nationalism itself dates it to the late 18th Century at the earliest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 4:35 PM theOtter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by theOtter, posted 11-04-2003 8:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
theOtter
Inactive Junior Member


Message 74 of 264 (64345)
11-04-2003 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by PaulK
11-03-2003 5:12 PM


Re: Some answers
Well, PaulK, you’ve done it. Some of the best minds of the last three centuries have tried to disprove The Book of Mormon, and in all that time, no one has come up with a single shred of evidence to keep hundreds of thousands of people from believing its authenticity and joining The Church of Jesus Christ every single year. But you, PaulK, have discovered the flaw. The Nephites believed that the American Continent was their promised land, theirform of government bears a vague resemblance to a modern democracy, and the modern translation of The Book of Mormon is similar to the most popular nineteenth-century Bible. Q.E.D.
it’s obvious you’ve already made up your mind on this subject, so I’m not going to waste any more time on it. I could spend hours lecturing on how the digs in Peru and Venezuela have unearthed numerous cities corresponding exactlyboth in description and locationto the lengthy accounts found in Alma 45-62. I could cite the fact that the same software the FBI uses to determine document authorship indicates that not only was The Book of Mormon written by over a dozen different authors, but that not even one of those authors corresponds to known writings of Joseph Smith, Jr.. I could discuss the literally thousands of passages from its pages and the account of its translation that deal with subjects Joseph Smith, Jr., could not possibly have known. (Remember, this is a farm boy with a second-grade education writing about things that science wouldn’t accept as fact for another century or more.) I could do all of this, but it obviously doesn’t matter to you. I’ve responded to every concern you’ve brought up and moresome of them, multiple timesand you just keep trolling for more.
To PaulK and everyone else on this board, please take what I’ve said to heart. The Book of Mormon is the word of God, going hand in hand with the Bible to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST (title page). Gordon B. Hinckley is God’s prophet on the Earth today, and The Church of Jesus Christ is truly just that: Christ’s Church. If you want to know more, please feel free to e-mail me, but as for this board, I leave the words of Pontius Pilate.
To quote the prophet Jacob, Brethren, adieu.
------------------
Death is not extinguishing
the light; it is putting out
the lamp because dawn
has come.
Rabindranath Tagore

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2003 5:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Coragyps, posted 11-04-2003 10:39 AM theOtter has not replied
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 11-04-2003 3:03 PM theOtter has not replied
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 11-04-2003 7:02 PM theOtter has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 264 (64356)
11-04-2003 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by theOtter
11-03-2003 1:05 PM


So where does Mormon come into all this? Well, frankly, nowhere. Mormon was a prophet who lived ca. A.D. 310-385.
Thanks, I was wondering.
that’s not something I can answer for you.
Well, I'll accept that you can tell the difference in yourself - or that you think you can, anyway.
The more important question is, how do you tell the difference in other people? Like, the ones who are setting doctrine or policy or even writing the Scriptures themselves? If you can't explain how you yourself do it, how can you trust that anybody else is able to?
How would I explain what salty is like? I would take a random sample of foods, and have randomly chosen people taste them and identify the salty things. I would test many people with the same foods and see to what extent they agreed.
Now, maybe I don't wind up knowing exactly what saltiness is "like". I do however wind up with a pretty good sense of what is salty, and what's not, and that's far more important.
there’s nothing I can say that will change your mind.
Yeah, pretty much. The words that would change my mind would have to be uttered from God's own lips.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by theOtter, posted 11-03-2003 1:05 PM theOtter has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024