ForumsWEPRMormonism

428 86952
Linktopast30
offline
Linktopast30
109 posts
Jester

I'm starting this topic to "continue" a conversation started in the Christians vs. Catholics thread. I will include some of the details from there, but the rest are up to anyone new to read up on. I will specifically post the contents of one post, more or less.

We did not baptize Adolf Hitler. That is a lie. After people baptized for Obama's mother, an official release was sent out saying that unless you specifically know the person who's name you are bringing in to do temple work for (not the names that they already have) or they are in your family, you cannot do temple work for them.

We are not barred from being around ex Mormons. We do not necessarily believe they are with Satan. We excommunicate people for their good. In our views, it gives them a second chance. They can rejoin the church later, and their sins will be gone, just as they were when they were first baptized. I know many ex Mormons, and I do not get in trouble for being with them.

South Park is in no way an authority on anything. The fact that you're trying to cite that is pathetic.

Yes, there was polygamy. But it was revoked in the 1890's (even if only for legal reasons). Joseph Smith did not try to burn down a newspaper place. He was taken to jail for no real reason. If he shot back, it was only because they were shooting at him.

The reason non members are not allowed in the temple is because of the sacred things that go on in there. If just anyone was allowed in, the spirit would be disrupted. I will expound on this if needs be.

I am personally ashamed of the acts of other Latter-Day Saints who have done temple work for people without permission from relatives of that person. It is wrong, and we know it.

Tithing... It was actually in Christ's day when it started. The only reason it affects our worthiness to enter the temple (not our standing in general). The Lord gave us everything we have, and all he asks is 10% of what we earn. I'd say that's a pretty small price for life, liberty, and happiness.

Also, we believe in Agency and Accountability. You can choose to do what you want, but you will have to accept the consequences.

I have a testimony of Jesus Christ. He is my savior and my redeemer. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that Thomas S. Monson is the living prophet today. I believe the Bible to be true as far as it is correctly translated. I know that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven for our sins and return to live with our Heavenly Father. I have seen the Atonement in action in my life. I know that God listens to all prayers to him. He answers them in his own way. I know that I can make it to the Celestial Kingdom if I but do my best to keep the commandments of God.

  • 428 Replies
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,014 posts
Shepherd

I do want to post a rather lengthy thread we had on Mormonism back in '08. However, I locked it so that no one would post in it. So, it's really just for a reference point. This is one of the few times I think it's okay to have such a duplicate topic. I find necro topics are worse.
Mormonism

So, on point. Are you wanting to spark discussion about Mormonism? Or did you have another goal in mind for this topic?

Linktopast30
offline
Linktopast30
109 posts
Jester

I want to know what others believe about Mormons, and possibly clear up some of the misunderstandings and myths about our religion. I've been in enough theological arguments to know I can't change anyone's opinion, but I can at least clear up some of the facts.

jroyster22
offline
jroyster22
756 posts
Peasant

I think where the problem lies with mormonism is people really are having a hard time understanding what mormonism actually is aside from the ignorant statements made about the religion. Im not saying im with or against. But sometimes we have to open our minds or put ourselves in others shoes to really understand where they are coming from.

Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,014 posts
Shepherd

royster said it right. It's the lack of knowledge. It seems like every Mormon I've spoken to isn't even clear themselves.

Hypermnestra
offline
Hypermnestra
26,390 posts
Nomad

E1337 got most of the stuff, but...

I am personally ashamed of the acts of other Latter-Day Saints who have done temple work for people without permission from relatives of that person. It is wrong, and we know it.

You may personally be ashamed, but the rest of your church is not. Baptism by proxy(that is, a living relative of a dead person being baptized in their dead relative's name) is very much alive, well, and supported by the LDS Church. Now, the church does say that the individual has the ability to choose whether or not they wish to be baptized posthumously...while they are residing in the spirit world. How exactly this dead person is supposed to communicate their wishes regarding the baptism to the Church is not made clear.
Here is my link for that.
And here is a direct quote from said link...

A living person, often a descendant who has become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is baptized in behalf of a deceased person. This work is done by Church members in temples throughout the world.

Some people have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed, deceased persons are baptized into the Church against their will. This is not the case. Each individual has agency, or the right to choose. The validity of a baptism for the dead depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world. The names of deceased persons are not added to the membership records of the Church.

So there you have it.

Now, to be fair, Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob of angry people in Nauvoo before the Latter Day Saints were led into Utah by Brigham Young.
In addition, I find it very interesting that the only thing people know about the LDS Gospel is how exactly Joseph Smith came about the Plates of Moroni, and not what those plates said, which is pretty much the entire content of the Book of Mormon and the PoGP.
My family's Mormon. I'm not. I find the religion ridiculous, and most of both its opponents and proponents sadly misinformed.
Hypermnestra
offline
Hypermnestra
26,390 posts
Nomad

What I meant was, Smith wasn't exactly being a madman when he fired the gun; he was trying to prevent his own murder. Self-defense, if you will. He was firing into a mob of people who were going to murder him, not a bunch of innocent civilians.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

So, on point. Are you wanting to spark discussion about Mormonism? Or did you have another goal in mind for this topic?


The discussion was already sparked, this is just giving it, it's own home instead of continuing to hijack another thread.

But mormonism is not christanity. LDS is henotheistic, which is very much against Judeochristianislamic texts, which hold that monotheism of the old testament says that there is only one god, That is god "the father" "The Lord"


I don't recall any Mormons accepting the possibility of other gods. I'm also pretty sure they still accept the Old Testament as well.
Linktopast30
offline
Linktopast30
109 posts
Jester

@E1337 You're still a martyr if you defend yourself and die anyways. Doesn't change a thing.

MageGrayWolf, you are right. We accept both the Old Testament and the New Testament as far as they are properly translated, and the Apocrypha has been quoted more than once by general authorities. Now, when I say "as far as they are properly translated," I mean that people throughout history have changed things or misinterpreted them in the bible, distorting the true meaning. We believe that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim to translate parts of the Bible, some of which translations are in the footnotes of "our" Bibles, which can be read without the translations. We believe the King James Version of the Bible to be the closest to correct version of the Bible.

Sonatavarius
offline
Sonatavarius
1,322 posts
Farmer

what are the grounds for the claim that mormons are not christian?

samy
offline
samy
4,874 posts
Nomad

We believe that Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim to translate parts of the Bible, some of which translations are in the footnotes of "our" Bibles, which can be read without the translations. We believe the King James Version of the Bible to be the closest to correct version of the Bible.


Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Dead sea Scrolls affirm that what is in the Christian bible is a correct translation of the earliest manuscripts? Correct me if I'm wrong again, but seeing as how our knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages have improved since the time that the King James was written mean that the newer translations (NIV, ESV, ASV, etc.) are more likely to be correct? Lastly, correct me if I'm wrong but don't all of theseverses mean that Joseph Smith is having a nice time in hell?
Sonatavarius
offline
Sonatavarius
1,322 posts
Farmer

what God's do they accept?

Linktopast30
offline
Linktopast30
109 posts
Jester

We accept only the godhead. We accept Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Just because knowledge increases about something doesn't mean that religious texts become more accurate. Academia often tries to disprove religion. Also, corruption plays a role.

Also, anything after The Acts are not in chronological order. Paul's epistles were put in order of longest to shortest. Some say Revelation was put in the back because of those verses (22:18-19) so there is an easy way to say any other religion is false. I believe that it's because some of the most profound and vital revelations (hence the book's name) are in it, and the end of a book like that is perfect because it lowers the likelihood of people reading it, especially if they are trying to read the Bible all the way through.

Also, I would recommend watching this General Conference talk by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, called Safety for the Soul. I would also recommend reading it, because the message is that powerful. Here's the link:
Safety for the Soul

I had E1337 watch a portion of it earlier, but the portion I had him watch was only what I wanted him to hear in order to prove a point. I am no longer trying to prove a point, so I'd appreciate it if you watched the whole thing. If you do not wish to watch the entire thing, watch from 5 minutes forward.

Wow, this was a lucky find. It explains (in part) why we use the King James Version. Part of it had to do that Joseph Smith translated from that particular version of the bible.
Ensign December 1972

Anyways, I just got a bloody nose that I need to attend to.

samy
offline
samy
4,874 posts
Nomad

Just because knowledge increases about something doesn't mean that religious texts become more accurate.


Have you ever compared the two side by side? The differences are minimal and often regulated to different word usage to clarify the meaning of the passage based upon the original text.

Also, anything after The Acts are not in chronological order.


And? I fail to see how that would effect the meaning of the text.

new passages that clarify and enhance the message of the Bible


Sounds suspicious already.

âI believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.â


Wait what? A man with little formal training had the audacity to proclaim that hundreds of previous transcribers were careless?

The thoughtful reader of the Bible soon observes that there are many passages that are vague and hard to understand and that seem to be incomplete.


So he abriged the bible? By what right? Why hadn't god intervened before this?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

by accepting the existence of other gods sonatavarius


Which other gods are you claiming they accept?

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Dead sea Scrolls affirm that what is in the Christian bible is a correct translation of the earliest manuscripts?


Actually the translations in the Dead Sea Scrolls often vastly differ from anything we have today.

Also, anything after The Acts are not in chronological order.


The Gospels are also out of order by when they were written and they were almost definitely not written by the people they are credited to.

Some say Revelation was put in the back because of those verses (22:18-19) so there is an easy way to say any other religion is false. I believe that it's because some of the most profound and vital revelations (hence the book's name) are in it, and the end of a book like that is perfect because it lowers the likelihood of people reading it, especially if they are trying to read the Bible all the way through.


There was actually quite a bit of debate on even including them since even for that time Revelations was hard to believe.

Wait what? A man with little formal training had the audacity to proclaim that hundreds of previous transcribers were careless?


It is true the version of the Bible we have was created with a more political motivation behind it with parts even added in to the original text. So Joseph Smith would be justified in not trusting the texts of the time, though the methods he used to arrive at his conclusions are highly questionable.

The wiki page on him is rather interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

Found something. This is something I posted previously it's a reviewed of Joseph Smith from that wiki page on possible psychological states.

Crippled by a bone infection at age eight, the younger Smith hobbled on crutches as a child.


This would likely have made him something of an outcast growing up.

During the Second Great Awakening, the region was a hotbed of religious enthusiasm. Although the Smith family was caught up in this excitement, they disagreed about religion.


This here indicates a predisposition against current church doctrine which could have later influenced his "visions".

Joseph Smith may not have joined a church in his youth, but he participated in church classes and read the Bible. With his family, he took part in religious folk magic, a common practice but one condemned by many clergymen.


This indicates to me that he likely had a pretty good grasp on what the religions said and possibly thought out side of the box on a number of times.

Like many people of that era, both his parents and his maternal grandfather had mystical visions or dreams that they believed communicated messages from God. Smith later said that he had his own first vision in 1820, in which God told him his sins were forgiven and that all churches were false.


Not only does this put his visions on the same level as claims of UFO abductions, but also suggests that he and his relatives could have easily gotten away with an unchecked hereditary psychosis as the cause of the "visions".

The Smith family supplemented its meager farm income by treasure-digging, likewise relatively common in contemporary New England. Joseph claimed an ability to use seer stones for locating lost items and buried treasure. To do so, Smith would put a stone in a white stovepipe hat and would then see the required information in reflections given off by the stone.


Perhaps an influence on later events?

In 1823, while praying for forgiveness from his "gratification of many appetites," Smith said he was visited at night by an angel named Moroni, who revealed the location of a buried book of golden plates as well as other artifacts, including a breastplate and a set of silver spectacles with lenses composed of seer stones, which had been hidden in a hill named Cumorah near his home.


Finally it all comes together.

The history of his life seems to indicate to me a number of possibilities that should be compared to the Mormon views.

First off it was pretty common place for people to claim to have visions of God, and many people in his family laid claim to this ability. This indicates that Joseph may have had a possible psychosis that got progressively worse as he got older resulting in more vivid and elaborate delusions. At the very least being surrounded by people having visions could have placed him in a self diluting state to fit in.
The events he experience in his visions clearly could have been influence by previous events and situations earlier in his life such as considering all religions as false and finding a treasure with the "real religion" written on it.

Another possibility, is that given his likely childhood and religious experiences growing up, he saw the kind of pull religion had and concocted an elaborate story as some sort of scam.

So what's more likely someone with an undiagnosed mental illness or at least self delusional individual who either let things get out of hand or intentionally created a scam. Or The man really spoke to God and angels and possessed physical evidence (non of which was ever seen by anyone else) which through a combination of help from a supernatural entity and psychic powers he was able to use to translate the true accounts of the early Christian church?
Showing 1-15 of 428