Forums → WEPR → Mormonism
| 428 | 87323 |
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 But it was revoked in the 1890's (even if only for legal reasons).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
It was only one of the many reasons, one of which was that they had, in a way, knowingly forsaken God. Again, committing a sin knowingly is what makes it a sin, and denying God after you have had a testimony of him is the worst.
If a sin is only a sin if you know it's a sin, why would God or anyone tell us what is or is not a sin?
To be honest, I first viewed this at being rediculous and stupid, I did some research and thought that the origin practically proves itself wrong. But being a Christian myself, I realized all religions how gaps in them were doubt will OBVIOUSLY take place. It is referred to often as your "faith" this is because religons require trust in what you beleive. I see why someone beleives in nothing, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't respect other's religion. It's called common courtesy, and although encouraged by many religions, it is simply a good trait to have.
So basically what you are saying, monkey, is "I realize that my faith makes no since, but lay off my delusions, man!"? Why do you think it should be a common curtsy? Why should you trust in what you are told?
I see why someone beleives in nothing, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't respect other's religion. It's called common courtesy, and although encouraged by many religions, it is simply a good trait to have.
Why? Why should one respect what they see as irrationality?
If their are truly rational, they should welcome a debate, as it is a chance for them to test it - and perhaps to enlighten another person.
The only reason why someone would not welcome a debate would be if they don't truly believe they are right.
If their are truly rational, they should welcome a debate, as it is a chance for them to test it - and perhaps to enlighten another person
I'm not saying someone should beleive in it, only not to sit there and be mean to someone because of it, or say a monk is meditating and someone is shooting spit balls at them. What your saying is like saying I don't think I sould sit near someone because their a vegitarian...
I'm not saying someone should beleive in it, only not to sit there and be mean to someone because of it, or say a monk is meditating and someone is shooting spit balls at them. What your saying is like saying I don't think I sould sit near someone because their a vegitarian...
Respecting a person is different from respecting a religion. Shooting spitballs at a monk I could see as bad, but shooting spitballs at there religion is a good thing. So why should we not attack your delusion?
Why should you trust in what you are told?
I didn't say that so much as trust in what you beleive in, which kinda contradicts itself because to beleive in something you need some sort of trust... AHG nevermind... The answer is yes(I'm to tired to think hardly even remember what i wrote, oh well :P)
I'm not saying someone should beleive in it, only not to sit there and be mean to someone because of it, or say a monk is meditating and someone is shooting spit balls at them.
You're interpreting attacking an idea as attacking a person - they are both distinct things.
Respecting a person is different from respecting a religion. Shooting spitballs at a monk I could see as bad, but shooting spitballs at there religion is a good thing. So why should we not attack your delusion?
I see what your saying , but what i say is MY opinion, I personally dislike it when someone trys to prove my religion wrong because I can't back myself up 100%, as a result, I am not the guy who goes on trains and shouts to people to convert what they beleive in, in otherwords, I stick to what I beleive in and you can do the same
You're interpreting attacking an idea as attacking a person - they are both distinct things.
I meant disrespect as physically, I never thought about the idea, I do agree it's cool for people to debate, I run into physical just as much as the idea, I kinda question things in an idea, but normally just keep them all the same.
I personally dislike it when someone trys to prove my religion wrong because I can't back myself up 100%
Why can you not back yourself up 100%? Is it because a lack of communication? If so, then this place is great, as it forces you to express that which you have only registered in your mind, and have not bothered to write down.
I personally dislike it when someone trys to prove my religion wrong because I can't back myself up 100%, as a result, I am not the guy who goes on trains and shouts to people to convert what they beleive in, in otherwords, I stick to what I beleive in and you can do the same
So once again you are saying "Don't attack my delusions, because I know they are wrong"? It sure sounds like it. Have you thought that you are probably wrong before?
Why can you not back yourself up 100%? Is it because a lack of communication? If so, then this place is great, as it forces you to express that which you have only registered in your mind, and have not bothered to write down.
It's 50 50, I don't like arguing because I did it so much growing up to this point in a family of 7 people, and the other half is that they attack the gaps in my religion as I mentioned before, however if a debate come out positively for both people (such as the other thread we were debating in) I don't mind ;P
It's 50 50, I don't like arguing because I did it so much growing up to this point in a family of 7 people, and the other half is that they attack the gaps in my religion as I mentioned before, however if a debate come out positively for both people (such as the other thread we were debating in) I don't mind ;P
Fifty percent you are basing a large part of your life on? That sounds like a horrible idea to me.
So once again you are saying "Don't attack my delusions, because I know they are wrong"? It sure sounds like it. Have you thought that you are probably wrong before?
Once again, you assume that, but as I mentioned there are gaps in religions, even atheism, just because a religion isn't 100% true doesn't mean it's wrong, otherwise if there was 100% truth that a religion was true there would be alot more followers(Not saying everyone)
You must be logged in to post a reply!