Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
theOtter
Inactive Junior Member


Message 53 of 264 (63906)
11-02-2003 5:26 AM


Some answers (quite long)
Well, there’s been a lot of posts in this thread; some good, some bad, some downright ugly. The bottom line is that if you want to know about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or any religion, for that matter), the best way is to get it straight from the horse’s mouth. There are plenty of placesboth on the web and otherwisewhere you can find out why someone believes something is false; this seems particularly true of The Church of Jesus Christ. However, I personally think it makes more sense to ask someone that actually knows what they’re talking about to explain it. Most often, this is someone who is affiliated with the organization in question.
I joined The Church of Jesus Christ just over 12 years ago, having grown up in a very mainstream Protestant family. My parents were understandably afraid that I was joining a cult, but a visit with their minister straightened them out. He informed them that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is exactly what the name impliesa Christian Churchand that they had absolutely nothing to worry about. (I truly thank God for this wonderful man, as I know of many, many others who will happily badmouth anything outside their own congregation.)
Anyway, I’d like to clear the air about some of the things I’ve seen posted on here, since it’s obvious that most people have, at best, a partial understanding.
Origins of so-called Mormonism
In the 1810s and ’20s, there was a huge religious fervor in New York State. Missionaries were coming from all over the place trying to gain converts to their various churches, so much that the area became known as the burned-over district. In the midst of all this fervor, a young boy named Joseph Smith, Jr., was very confused. Every preacher he spoke to was badmouthing all the others, so he finally gave up on them and turned to the Bible, eventually stumbling across James 1:5: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God. Joseph decided to do just this, and one morning in early Spring, 1820 (historians now gravitate towards March 26), went out into a grove of trees near his home and started to pray. He wanted to know which church was the true one, and had faith that God would answer him. He never expected what the answer would be. In Joseph’s own words:
I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the otherThis is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
Through this and many other experiences, Joseph Smith, Jr., was called to be a prophet of God, just like many of the earlier prophets (including those of the Old and New Testaments) who also saw God and were called to teach others.
The Book of Mormon
A lot of people think The Book of Mormon is The Mormon Bible. Actually, that’s kind of silly, since Latter-day Saints believe the Bible and use it quite regularly. (My wife and I, for example, read the entire New Testament this year.) The Book of Mormon is simply another testamentanother witnessthat Jesus is the Christ. The Biblical prophets taught the word of God in the area of Jerusalem; at the same time, however, there were other prophets in other lands, teaching the exact same word of God. Most of these records are still lost to history, but Joseph Smith Jr. was led, by revelation, to a summary of the records of the prophets on the American continent (the golden plates mentioned by Loudmouth). He translated these plates by the power of God; when he was done, the same angel (Moroni) who gave them to him in the first place took them back. As has also been mentioned, there were eleven official witnesses of these plates (imagine taking that to a court of law! At least eleven people will attest to the fact that he had them!), whose written testimonies were added as an introduction to the published translation of the Book.
Probably the most important thing about Mormonism is a promise contained in the Book of Mormon itself, made by the last prophet of the civilization (that same Moroni who, as a resurrected being, gave Joseph the plates): if you want to know if the Book of Mormon (or anything, for that matter) is true, don’t take my word for it; ask God. He’ll let you know, just like he let me, and Joseph Smith Jr., and at least 12 million other people know. It’s a little thing called prayer, and I can testify that, done with faith, it’s not just a one-way conversation.
Some less important stuff that’s been mentioned:
Holy Underwear
This is probably one of the most misunderstood, ridiculed tenets of Mormonism. Among the ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that of the endowment, in which several covenants are made with God (eg. help other people, no extramarital sex, etc.). As part of the endowment, the individual is clothed in the garment of the holy priesthood, which serves as a reminder of the covenants we make. This in and of itself is a phenomenally deep subject, but nothing to get hung up on.
Tithing
God made this law pretty clear in the Bible; I give you 100% of what you get; give me back a tenth of that, and I’ll bless you so much you won’t know what hit you. Until the day that the general public is unselfish enough to have all things in common (like the New Testament Christians), members of Christ’s Church will live this law. As for Loudmouth’s statement that people were being sent their own tax returns with a bill from the Church, I suppose it’s possible that some bishop somewhere was instructed by revelation to do this, but I think the story is more likely fabrication than anything. How would the Church even get someone’s tax returns?
Polygamy
Again, the basic law is simple: every man has one wife, every woman has one husband. However, sometimes this just isn’t practical for the society (eg. in ancient Israel, when plural marriage was often used for the sake of procreation.
True, some (about 2%) of the nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriage, but it was more of a Church calling than anything. The local bishop would receive revelation that a certain man was to take a certain woman to wife; he would then call that man and his current wife into his office and invite them to accept this calling. Often this was done for the sake of procreation, but sometimes it was simply a means of caring for the widows. Many plural wivesespecially older oneslived in completely different houses than their husbands, never even having sex with them.
Latter-day Saints also believe in obeying the law of the land, but to use their Consitutional rights to protect their own freedoms. As such, when Congress passed an act that outlawed plural marriages, the Saints fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, which finally ruled the act Constitutional in 1889. At that point, the President of the Church checked with the Lord, who confirmed that they should obey the law of the land. Consequently, the Church issued an official declaration against any and all unlawful marriages, effectively ending plural marriage.
God’s family
A_Christian cites some very interesting beliefs; unfortunately, everything he says is just a bit off the mark. Latter-day Saints do believe in a Heavenly Mother, but in a dozen years, I’ve never once heard her referred to as Wisdom. The doctrine is simple: every one of usincluding Jehovah (Jesus Christ) and Lucifer (Satan) are spirit children of our Heavenly Father. (Was Lucifer the second-born? Maybe. We really don’t know, nor does it matter.) Our Heavenly Father’s plan was for us to come to earth, learn to make correct choices, and come back to Him. Not all of us would make it, but all would have the opportunity to do so through the atoning blood of the Savior (Jesus Christ). Satan had a different plan: he wanted everyone to be forced to do what was right (hence, no real growth) and volunteered to be the Savior himself. This in and of itself probably wasn’t a bad thing, but when our Heavenly Father made his final decision (to go with His original plan), Satan rebelled against Him and wound up being cast out, taking his followersa third of our Heavenly Father’s childrenwith him. Anyway, getting back to our Heavenly Mother, she’s there, but I’m sure she does a lot more than pump[ing] out spirit babies. I’m guessing the reason we don’t know more about her is because so many people (ahem) degrade what little we do know.
Jesus Christ as Savior
Jesus Christ suffered in Gethsemane and died on the cross for our sins. He was resurrected from the dead so that we can also be resurrected. While it is vitally important to keep the commandments of God (doing works), no amount of works can ever save us. Only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ can we ever make it back to our Heavenly Father. I have read many, many teachings of many, many prophets, and I can conclusively declare that this is the only doctrine that has ever been preached by The Church of Jesus Christ. Bottom line: anyone who says that Latter-day Saints believe in anything but salvation by grace is sorely mistaken; we just believe that God asks us to do all we can, and then the atoning blood of Christ will make up the difference.
Masonry
It is a common misconception that Latter-day Saints Temple ordinances are based on Masonic rituals. While there are some similarities, any learned Jew will be happy to tell you where Freemasonry really comes from. Rabbi Isaac Wise, for example, stated that Freemasonry is a Jewish establishment, whose history, grades, official appointments, passwords, and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end. Much has been written on this subject, but the bottom line is this: it’s really not surprising that rituals based on God’s ancient ordinances would resemble the ones found in the modern Church of Jesus Christ.
Prophets
Comparisons to Buffy aside, new prophets don’t appear; they are called. In fact, at pretty much any given time, there are fifteen prophets on the earth: three in a Quorum of the First Presidency, which presides over the Church; and twelve in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who fulfill the mandate given to their Biblical predecessors to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth. When the President of the Church (who, with his two counselors, comprise the First Presidency of the Church) dies, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles becomes the presiding quorum, with the president of this quorum as acting President of the Church. One the new President of the Church (traditionally the former President of the Twelve) is set apart as such, the First Presidency is reorganized, a new President of the Twelve is set apart, and a new Apostle is called to fill the resulting vacancy in the Twelve.
Prophecies
There’s plenty of people out there that will tell you that Joseph Smith Jr., Brigham Young Sr. (the second President of the Church), or any number of other people prophesied all sorts of ridiculous things. The people on the moon comment, for example, comes from a statement by Oliver B. Huntington, in 1892. He got the information from a journal entry he had made in 1881, in which he cited Philo Dribble. Dribble, in turn, just knew that someone once told him that Joseph made that statement in 1837. Joseph Smith himself, of course, had been dead for almost half a century and was unavailable for comment. Now, how reliable do you think that story is? The point is that these so-called prophecies are generally statements taken out of context (deliberately or otherwise) that have subesequently been grossly misinterpreted. Whenever this is the case, going back to the original source always proves these prophecies to be little more than a misunderstanding. (In this particular case, the somebody that passed the information along to Philo Dribble was probably actually remembering in 1835, when the New York Sun reported that people had been discovered on the moon; newspapers all across the nation picked up the story, eventually attributing these moon men with 1,000-year lifespans and Quaker hats.) Bottom line: if somebody tells you that somebody elseanybody elsesaid something weird, see if they can cite it. Generally, the answer is a resounding no.
The Three Witnesses
I’ll finish on this one: Jake22 states that the cofounders of Mormonism denied the religion. What he is almost certainly referring to in this vein is that the Three Witnesses of The Book of MormonOliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harrisall fell away from the Church over personal disagreements with the Prophet Joseph Smith. Oliver eventually came back; David and Martin did not. However, even though two of the three never came back, all three adamantly confirmedeven on their respective deathbedsthat their written testimony was true. All three maintained throughout their lives that they had in fact seen an angel, and that he had shown them the golden plates from which The Book of Mormon was translated. David and Martin each felt that Joseph had made some mistakes after that point (which he had; he never claimed to be perfect), but neither ever denied his testimony that The Book of Mormon was (and is) true.
Well, pretty lengthy response, I know, but there’s a lot to be dealt with (and much that I haven’t even touched on). If you want to know the truth about Mormonism, feel free to e-mail me. Better yet, check out the official web site. It’s certainly a lot more accurate than anything posted on here.
------------------
Death is not extinguishing
the light; it is putting out
the lamp because dawn
has come.
Rabindranath Tagore

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by nator, posted 11-02-2003 9:21 AM theOtter has replied

  
theOtter
Inactive Junior Member


Message 55 of 264 (63994)
11-02-2003 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nator
11-02-2003 9:21 AM


Re: Some answers (quite long)
quote:
Racism, homophobia and misogyny are a big part of Mormon history and current beliefs, for example.
Well, not to be argumentative, but if these things have or have ever had any part in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, twelve years of studying both LDS and non-LDS writings have never brought any of them to light. On racism, for example: in the first half of the nineteenth century, most churches throughout the United States of American were segregated along white/black lines. The Church of Jesus Christ, however, has never been. In fact, Joseph Smith Jr. once sold his favorite horse to buy the freedom of a slave he had never even met; he also ran as a third-party candidate in the 1844 Presidential election (without any real hopes of winning, of course) on an anti-slavery platform. Do these sound like the actions of a racist man, much less the leader of a racist organization?
The racism I suppose you are citing is that, until 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that the descendants of Cain were not to be ordained to the Priesthood. They could be baptized, confirmed, and enjoy full fellowship in the Church and full salvation in the kingdom of God, but they were not to hold the Priesthood until God directed otherwise (which happened in 1978). This shouldn’t be surprising, since in the Bible, only the sons of Aaron were to be given the Priesthood for a time. Then during Christ’s mortal ministry, God directed that the Priesthood was to be extended to all worthy males (except, presumably, the descendants of Cain). There’s nothing racist about this; it’s simply a matter of what God wants, when God wants it. Blacks have always been able to receive the Priesthood. Elijah Abel, for example, was the first black ordained in this dispensationand that happened in 1836, when the Church itself was just barely fully organized! It’s just that the descendants of Cainmany of whom were blackwere not to be ordained. (I agree, by the way, that several prominent members of the Church have been very racist; people are imperfect. However, the views of a feweven a very prominent fewshould not be construed to be those of the whole.)
As for homophobia, I can only assume you base this on our teaching that homosexuality is a sin. Well, if that’s what it means to be homophobic, then The Church of Jesus Christ is guilty as charged. However, my understanding of homophobia is a fear and/or hatred of those who practice homosexuality. The Church certainly does not practice this. Those who practice homosexuality are more than welcome to come to Church, to worship with us, etc., etc., etc.. However, if one wants to be baptized, take the Sacrament, go to the Temple, etc., that person must truly and fully repent of their sins. That’s not homophobia; that’s Christianity. (Again, I’m sure that there are quite a few members of the Church that are quite homophobic; this is bound to happen in any large organization. But again, the views of a few are just that: their own views, for which they will be held accountable when they stand before the Lord in the Day of Judgment.)
Misogyny: I can’t even imagine where this one came from. People always talk about the Church giving up polygamy in order for Utah to become a state, but did you know they also had to give up women’s rights? As early as the 1850s, all citizens of Utahincluding womenwere equal before the law. They had the right to own property, the right to hold a job, and even the right to vote. In fact, if you look at the literature of the late nineteenth century, you’ll find many books (written by those outside the Church) about how Latter-day Saint men couldn’t keep their women in their place. Heck, five of the first ten female doctors in the United States of America were Latter-day Saints! If anybody was misogynistic, it was the government of the good old U. S. of A.: Utah women were allowed to vote right up until the 1890s, when Utah became a state and they lost that right. Even then, they still had the right to vote in the Church.
Well, I’ve devoted more time to this than I wanted to, so let me finish up with this: I fully recognize that there are two sides to every story, 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. However, I think it’s very dangerous to assume that anyone can be a completely objective observer. There’s plenty of people out there trying their darnedest to destroy The Church of Jesus Christ, and while I don’t agree with what they’re saying, I will defend to the death their right to say it. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, though, it’s people trying to tell me what my Churchand by extension, Ibelieve. You may believe whatever you want to believe, but when you try to tell me what I believe, you’d better be ready for a lambasting in return.
The Church of Jesus Christ is the church of Jesus Christ. I know this. I, like countless millions of others, have asked God, and He’s confirmed it on more occasions that I could ever begin to number. If you want to know the truth, don’t ask your preacher, don’t ask your minister, don’t ask your LDS friends, don’t even ask me. Ask God. He’ll tell you, the same way he told me.
And please don’t even try to tell me that I don’t know something just because you don’t know it. That’s about as valid as me claiming the sun doesn’t exist because I can’t see it at the moment. ;-)
------------------
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 54 by nator, posted 11-02-2003 9:21 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2003 4:40 PM theOtter has replied
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2003 4:44 PM theOtter has not replied
 Message 59 by nator, posted 11-03-2003 8:01 AM theOtter has replied
 Message 62 by nator, posted 11-03-2003 8:36 AM theOtter has replied

  
theOtter
Inactive Junior Member


Message 58 of 264 (64098)
11-03-2003 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
11-02-2003 4:40 PM


Re: Some answers (quite long)
quote:
Just a point, but if you don't know that the LDS Church banned Blacks banned from the priesthood for a good part of their history, then that illustrates the point that relying solely on official sources is questionable.
Actually, I used to believe the same thingthat the Church banned blacks from the Priesthood for a time, and most official sources seem to indicate this. However, I’ve never relied solely on official publications. The Indiana University library (one of the largest academic libraries in the nation) has an entire bookshelf on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the great majority of them are from non-LDS authors. I’ve read quite a few books on that shelfnone of which were written by members of the Churchincluding at least two that dealt exclusively with blacks and the Priesthood (sorry, don’t remember the titles; it’s been a few years). The fact of the matter is that, as I said in my last post, it is an historical fallacy to say that blacks as a race were banned from the Priesthood. Many blacks were denied the Priesthood because they were of the wrong lineage (eg. descended from Cain), but so were any whites that came from that lineage. It’s just that there is a huge overlap between African-Americans and the descendants of Cain (in other words, very few people are one or the other; the great majority of us are either neither or both), so it’s easy to miss the distinction.
quote:
How do you know who the decendants of Cain are?
Another great question. Among the most important tenets of The Church of Jesus Christ is that any one of us can receive revelation for those over whom we preside. You can receive revelation for you; I can receive revelation for me; PaulK can receive revelation for PaulK. Those who are head of a given family can receive revelation for that family. A bishop can receive revelation for the ward over which he is called to preside. The list goes on and on, until you finally get to the President of the Church, who is a guy just like anybody else who just happens to have been called to preside over (and therefore, receive revelation for) the entire Earth for a while.
In any given ward, it is the bishop’s responsibility to prayerfully determine who is to hold what calling. It is up to each bishop to determine when (and if) each member of his ward is to hold the Aaronic Priesthood, and what calling in said Priesthood they are to hold at any given time. Before the revelation of 1978, this including determininghopefully through revelationdescendancy from Cain. Do bishops make mistakes? Of course they do. They’re only human, just like the rest of us. But hopefully, each one is spiritually in tune enough to not screw up such a major decision.
------------------
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 56 by PaulK, posted 11-02-2003 4:40 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NosyNed, posted 11-03-2003 9:42 AM theOtter has not replied
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2003 12:23 PM theOtter has replied
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 11-03-2003 4:00 PM theOtter has 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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024