To those of you that have commented on the supposed stance of the LDS Church in relation to Blacks and the priesthood, here is a site that I find interesting (the authors of the site are 2 caucasian members and 1 Black member):
www.blacklds.org
Full Version: Ask a Mormon
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs
I wanted to clarify a few things for people who may not understand the difference between the FLDS and LDS.
The LDS Church has not practiced polygamy since 1890. It began actively excommunicating those who continued to attempt the practice in 1904.
We, LDS, do not have an issue with polygamy, we simply do not practice it or encourage current practice of polygamy within the LDS Church. We do however deplore child abuse. If the FLDS were indeed involved in child abuse as is alleged we are strongly against such.
The LDS Church has over ten million members while the FLDS is closer to ten thousand.
The LDS Church has not practiced polygamy since 1890. It began actively excommunicating those who continued to attempt the practice in 1904.
We, LDS, do not have an issue with polygamy, we simply do not practice it or encourage current practice of polygamy within the LDS Church. We do however deplore child abuse. If the FLDS were indeed involved in child abuse as is alleged we are strongly against such.
The LDS Church has over ten million members while the FLDS is closer to ten thousand.
Do you support the FLDS in anyway? Sympathies? What is the general reaction of the LDS, both the administration and the general congregation, towards the FLDS? Do you believe they are committing child abuse? I want the court case to play out before being rash and making emotional condemnations towards them as others are prone to.
QUOTE (Clovis @ May 1 2008, 06:31 PM) 
Do you support the FLDS in anyway? Sympathies?
The LDS Church does not support them, no. Are we sympathetic? I would say that we are sympathetic to any group that is oppressed. If they have not committed child abuse, then I personally believe that they have a right to behave as they choose. If they have committed child abuse then they must be held accountable under the law.
QUOTE (Clovis @ May 1 2008, 06:31 PM)
What is the general reaction of the LDS, both the administration and the general congregation, towards the FLDS?
We, the general congregation, are conflicted on the subject. The LDS Church does not believe that one person has the right to deny another their right to practice their religion as they see fit.
QUOTE
Articles of Faith 11
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We do however believe that violating another's rights is a punishable offense. We also view the abuse of children as an abomminable practice. As far as the practice of polygamy goes, we believe the FLDS are wrong, but they may worship God as they choose. As to abusing children, if such is the case, they are wrong and must be dealt with to the full extent of the law. 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
QUOTE
Articles of Faith 12
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
The issue with the FLDS is a difficult thing. Many people do not understand what it is that separates them from the LDS Church. We, LDS, believe that the FLDS were misled in denying the Manifesto. They denied the modern prophet when they left the LDS Church, and continue to deny the prophets since.
QUOTE (Clovis @ May 1 2008, 06:31 PM)
Do you believe they are committing child abuse?
Legally, I do not know. I believe that marrying a girl that is not an adult is wrong. I believe that the laws allowing for marriage of minors (often referencing to as young as 13-15) are in place for youth who engage in sexual activity and become pregnant, and that these laws are there so that these youth can choose to raise the child in a family, not to allow adults to marry minors. Marriage to a minor under these laws should be as such, and not an adult simply wanting to marry a minor. Morally, in our current society, I believe that yes, they are commiting child abuse. Yet, the law does not state the rationale for itself, as such without evidence to the contrary, legally they may not have committed child abuse.
I do not believe that I should be allowed to force my morals on them. I do however believe that given this instance we should enact laws that would make marriage to a minor much more difficult, if not impossible, legally.
Personally, I believe that among consenting adults, marriage of any type should be legal (any form of marriage, homosexual marriage included.) I do not believe that we have the right to deny such given that it is a moral choice and not a matter needing legislation. I do not condone such marriages, but among consenting adults I cannot see justification for the denial.
Thank you Bee Eff it is always good to get other views of the situation especially that from someone within the LDS. Maybe this will be the stimulus to have the FLDS reconcile their difference and rejoin the LDS. It is sad when people judge rapidly in any instance including believing LDS and FLDS are the same when they are not. I agree with most of your post above. God Bless You.
QUOTE (Clovis @ May 3 2008, 01:10 PM)
Thank you Bee Eff it is always good to get other views of the situation especially that from someone within the LDS. Maybe this will be the stimulus to have the FLDS reconcile their difference and rejoin the LDS. It is sad when people judge rapidly in any instance including believing LDS and FLDS are the same when they are not. I agree with most of your post above. God Bless You.
You are welcome.
I seriously doubt that this will cause the FLDS to change their belief, but you never know. I believe the behavior of their "Prophet" would be a much more convincing event. He actually made a statement while being questioned that he was not really a Prophet, but then perhaps they believe he did this under duress.
On the subject of LDS (Mormon) baptism for the dead:
Baptism for the dead, among other proxy ordinances for the dead, occurs in the LDS Temples. According to our beliefs, this is to allow the dead the opportunity to accept the Gospel in the afterlife. We do not believe this is a forced thing. We believe that when a person has died and has not had the opportunity to hear and make a conscious choice concerning whether or not to accept or reject the Gospel they are given an opportunity to hear and accept it while in the existence that is between death and resurrection. If they choose to accept the Gospel, they then accept the ordinances performed in the Temple. If, on the other hand, they choose to reject the Gospel, the ordinances performed in the Temple are nullified and of no effect now or in the future. We believe that by performing the ordinances in the Temple were are allowing those who have died to make a choice on the matter and not consigning them to a state where they cannot make such a choice. We, the LDS, believe Christ made this possible during the three days between his death and resurrection. He freed those that were damned through ignorance to be capable of making this choice, thus no one will be saved through ignorance when the day of judgement comes.
For some reason people believe that we are forcing the dead into a baptism that they do not choose, this is a sad and incorrect belief. If someone denies us the ability to do this, it shows a lack of faith in their own beliefs, imo. I hope that the above explanation enlightens those that do not understand our, the LDS, view on this subject. I am also posting this reply to the "Vatican tells bishops not to share registries, with MORMONS" thread.
Baptism for the dead, among other proxy ordinances for the dead, occurs in the LDS Temples. According to our beliefs, this is to allow the dead the opportunity to accept the Gospel in the afterlife. We do not believe this is a forced thing. We believe that when a person has died and has not had the opportunity to hear and make a conscious choice concerning whether or not to accept or reject the Gospel they are given an opportunity to hear and accept it while in the existence that is between death and resurrection. If they choose to accept the Gospel, they then accept the ordinances performed in the Temple. If, on the other hand, they choose to reject the Gospel, the ordinances performed in the Temple are nullified and of no effect now or in the future. We believe that by performing the ordinances in the Temple were are allowing those who have died to make a choice on the matter and not consigning them to a state where they cannot make such a choice. We, the LDS, believe Christ made this possible during the three days between his death and resurrection. He freed those that were damned through ignorance to be capable of making this choice, thus no one will be saved through ignorance when the day of judgement comes.
For some reason people believe that we are forcing the dead into a baptism that they do not choose, this is a sad and incorrect belief. If someone denies us the ability to do this, it shows a lack of faith in their own beliefs, imo. I hope that the above explanation enlightens those that do not understand our, the LDS, view on this subject. I am also posting this reply to the "Vatican tells bishops not to share registries, with MORMONS" thread.
Sorry, I realize I am sort of breaking from the format you have outlinded. However, I have some further questions on topics you have allready been asked (and one or two new ones) and with your permission, I may have follow up questions.
Hummm, perhaps....
I do find it interesting that the Mormon church (and chirstian religions in whole, especially the catholics) uses pagan symbols. Clearly, the founders of Mormonism carefuly considered what symbols would be used by the church. This is evident in the decision to not use the long standing christian symbol of the crucifix. However in comparison, as you have mentioned, Mormons did and do use several symbols that are associated with satanism, masonism, paganism and the zodiac (even if the meaning isn't shared). I am wondering if you can speak about why using long standing symbols of astrotheology are acceptable for use (even if a unique meaning has been ascribed) yet (in comparison) the mormon church rejects the symbol of the crucifix based on its existing symbolic meaning?
But why does the BoM identify this curse as the identifying mark of "dark skin"?
It appears from these verses that they were "cursed" with "dark skin" and that "god's people" should not "mix" with them unless their seed also have the same "curse" (dark skin) and by default believe in incorrect traditions. Thoughts?
While I don't know of it being in the BoM or any of the standard books of mormon doctrine, an explanation of black people that I understand has appeared in Mormon publications or teachings is that they were the people who rejected god's doctrine (or sided with satan) in the pre-existance in the war over who would rule this world. If you have heard of this, is that correct?
Why after giving Joseph Smith the "one true" religion have the practices of Mormonism gone through changes? Most notably stopping the practice of polygamy (which came after conflict with the US government) and the decision to alow blacks to hold the priesthood (which came after the civil rights movement). If these were part of god's plan and originaly part of the "one true relgion", why were they abandond in light of what could be seen as political/cultural changes? Or, why were they included in the practices of Mormonism in the first place if they were not part of god's plan?
peace.
QUOTE (Bee Eff @ Feb 10 2008, 04:10 AM)
Perhaps you should check into general Christianity and it's symbols. Given that the Christmas tree was taken from a pagan ritual, perhaps Christians are using Pagan symbolism. As I stated earlier, the inverted star was used in Constantine's seal, perhaps general Christianity worships the devil as such is used by some Satan worshippers.
Hummm, perhaps....
I do find it interesting that the Mormon church (and chirstian religions in whole, especially the catholics) uses pagan symbols. Clearly, the founders of Mormonism carefuly considered what symbols would be used by the church. This is evident in the decision to not use the long standing christian symbol of the crucifix. However in comparison, as you have mentioned, Mormons did and do use several symbols that are associated with satanism, masonism, paganism and the zodiac (even if the meaning isn't shared). I am wondering if you can speak about why using long standing symbols of astrotheology are acceptable for use (even if a unique meaning has been ascribed) yet (in comparison) the mormon church rejects the symbol of the crucifix based on its existing symbolic meaning?
QUOTE (Bee Eff @ Feb 17 2008, 06:07 PM)
Because an ancestor of theirs did something wrong enough to warrant his being cursed.
Now, as to currently being cursed, the indigenous people of the Americas are not cursed. We believe they are in the process of "[blossoming] as the rose"
We have not believed the curse to be in effect still, nor do I think that the curse has been in effect through the entire time since the Americas were discovered and settled. I have no clue how long the curse had ceased to hold sway over the people of the Americas prior to this.
Here is the effect of the curse once again:
"they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety"
Does this fit the indigenous people of the Americas? Are the American Indians an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety? If they are, then yes they are still cursed, if not they are not still cursed. You tell me, are the American Indians thus cursed?
Now, as to currently being cursed, the indigenous people of the Americas are not cursed. We believe they are in the process of "[blossoming] as the rose"
We have not believed the curse to be in effect still, nor do I think that the curse has been in effect through the entire time since the Americas were discovered and settled. I have no clue how long the curse had ceased to hold sway over the people of the Americas prior to this.
Here is the effect of the curse once again:
"they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety"
Does this fit the indigenous people of the Americas? Are the American Indians an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety? If they are, then yes they are still cursed, if not they are not still cursed. You tell me, are the American Indians thus cursed?
But why does the BoM identify this curse as the identifying mark of "dark skin"?
QUOTE
"And the skins of the Lamanites were DARK, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which WAS A CURSE upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men." (Book of Mormon, page 201, Alma 3, verse 6)[/size]
Alma 3 verse 8; "And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction."
Alam 3 verse 9; "And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed."
Alma 3 verse 8; "And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction."
Alam 3 verse 9; "And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed."
It appears from these verses that they were "cursed" with "dark skin" and that "god's people" should not "mix" with them unless their seed also have the same "curse" (dark skin) and by default believe in incorrect traditions. Thoughts?
While I don't know of it being in the BoM or any of the standard books of mormon doctrine, an explanation of black people that I understand has appeared in Mormon publications or teachings is that they were the people who rejected god's doctrine (or sided with satan) in the pre-existance in the war over who would rule this world. If you have heard of this, is that correct?
Why after giving Joseph Smith the "one true" religion have the practices of Mormonism gone through changes? Most notably stopping the practice of polygamy (which came after conflict with the US government) and the decision to alow blacks to hold the priesthood (which came after the civil rights movement). If these were part of god's plan and originaly part of the "one true relgion", why were they abandond in light of what could be seen as political/cultural changes? Or, why were they included in the practices of Mormonism in the first place if they were not part of god's plan?
peace.
QUOTE (el midgetron @ May 10 2008, 11:59 PM)
I do find it interesting that the Mormon church (and chirstian religions in whole, especially the catholics) uses pagan symbols. Clearly, the founders of Mormonism carefuly considered what symbols would be used by the church. This is evident in the decision to not use the long standing christian symbol of the crucifix. However in comparison, as you have mentioned, Mormons did and do use several symbols that are associated with satanism, masonism, paganism and the zodiac (even if the meaning isn't shared). I am wondering if you can speak about why using long standing symbols of astrotheology are acceptable for use (even if a unique meaning has been ascribed) yet (in comparison) the mormon church rejects the symbol of the crucifix based on its existing symbolic meaning?
First, LDS theology holds that most, if not all religions have some truth to them. All truth comes from God in our mortal sphere. Thus all religions have aspects of their beliefs and/or practices that will be present in the true Church of God.
Second, we, LDS, believe that Adam began the original "religion" as it were. Thus, all religious practice and beliefs have evolved from the original. Thus they all have the possibility of having truth merely by heritage.
Third, you mention Satanism. Satanism borrowed heavily from the Celtic style religions. Satanism's adherents took symbolism from religions that were not Satanic. I have yet to see a Satanic symbol that was original.
As to the use of a cross, here is an article that addresses the subject: The Symbol of Our Faith
QUOTE (el midgetron @ May 10 2008, 11:59 PM)
But why does the BoM identify this curse as the identifying mark of "dark skin"?
The dark skin was not the curse. The skin color in the Book of Mormon was used as a means of differentiation. Your statement is incorrect, it should read as the following: "Why does the BoM state the mark of "dark skin" as identifying those that are cursed?"
Here is the statement of the curse in the BoM:
QUOTE
2 Nephi 5:21-24
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
The cursing is not the skin color, as I said. I have bolded the curse.
QUOTE (el midgetron @ May 10 2008, 11:59 PM)
It appears from these verses that they were "cursed" with "dark skin" and that "god's people" should not "mix" with them unless their seed also have the same "curse" (dark skin) and by default believe in incorrect traditions. Thoughts?
The skin color was for differentiation at that time, yes. Was skin color the curse? No. Today people counsel their children not to "mix" with people that have morals that they find questionable for fear that these questionable morals fall on their children. The counsel you cite follows the same logic. It has been shown that you will become more like those that you associate with than those you do not. This is the counsel given: associate with those that have morals, personality traits and beliefs that fall in line with what you wish to be.
QUOTE (el midgetron @ May 10 2008, 11:59 PM)
While I don't know of it being in the BoM or any of the standard books of mormon doctrine, an explanation of black people that I understand has appeared in Mormon publications or teachings is that they were the people who rejected god's doctrine (or sided with satan) in the pre-existance in the war over who would rule this world. If you have heard of this, is that correct?
No, this is incorrect. We believe that the dark skin, again, was a mark given Cain and his progeny. We do not believe that most people are born into white, black, poverty, abundance, sickly, handicapped, physiologically superior or any other physiological or sociological aspect of life due to preexistence. Some people were placed on the earth at specific times in specific areas to further the plan of God, but these are few.
There is speculation by people, and always has been, that those that appear to be in a better situation must have been placed there by God because they were better. This is a sad fallacy that people in general fall into. LDS people are just like everyone else, they make mistakes and have a tendency towards pride. The problem that exists, and that this post is an example of, is that speculation that is inflamatory is then taken by detractors as a doctrine we believe in. This is then spread among those that do not know our beliefs along with short snippets of statements by our leaders in the past, snippets that are out of context and misleading. This then is taken and used as an attack at our beliefs that we cannot wholly deny. When a persons states a snippet and asks if the leader actually said it, we respond, "Yes, but (and then proceded to explain the misunderstanding)." Our detractor will often jump up and say, "Ah Ha! You do in fact believe this, the snippet is true!", and ignore the fact that we did in fact deny the claim while acknowledging that the snippet did in fact exist.
QUOTE (el midgetron @ May 10 2008, 11:59 PM)
Why after giving Joseph Smith the "one true" religion have the practices of Mormonism gone through changes? Most notably stopping the practice of polygamy (which came after conflict with the US government) and the decision to alow blacks to hold the priesthood (which came after the civil rights movement). If these were part of god's plan and originaly part of the "one true relgion", why were they abandond in light of what could be seen as political/cultural changes? Or, why were they included in the practices of Mormonism in the first place if they were not part of god's plan?
Why did God give Moses the commandments? Adam knew how to worship. Why did Christ "change" things? God had already given the Law to Moses.
The LDS Church has never claimed it was given knowledge of all things. As we learn more and are given more, we will be capable of changing.
Changes in practice occur regularly and have precedent in the Bible. God can do what He wants, I expect changes to occur.
Also, sometimes things change in the Church because people are weak. In the bible we have the Israelites begging Samuel the prophet for a king, even while God told them a king was not in their best interest. We have Moses breaking the first set of tablets and having to return to the mountain and receiving a slightly different Law, because the people could not handle themselves while Moses was gone. God is an intelligent being, he understands the organism that is Man. The best method is a within subject design, the subject is the measure and the variables are manipulated around the subject. God applies such, we are the subject in God's plan, how the plan is implemented is based in how we respond and behave. This does not mean that we will prove to be successful, only that the variables presented will be the best for us. Prefacing the LDS Word of Wisdom is the following:
QUOTE
Doctrine and Covenants 89:3
3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.
3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.
The bolded portion is important and can be applied to most of the commandments and practices that the Church follows. God will not give us more than we are capable of. People are weak and as such we are given such that we can accomplish the best we can.
To answer your direct questions though:
The blacks had not received the priesthood when they did because no one had ever asked God if they could receive the priesthood prior to that point. This is the speculative response, it is what many LDS believe to be the reason for this occurring when it did.
Polygamy is not practiced because had we continued to practice it our fellow citizens of the US would have made it impossible for us to survive. The Church is not invincible. The treatment of the early apostles attests to this.
.................................................................
Your post was not offensive, I took it as honest curiosity. I did not feel you were attacking, but questioning some facts about the LDS Church.
I have a mormon friend. He wont drink coffee or tea, but he will drink doctor pepper. 
QUOTE (Primeval @ May 11 2008, 12:43 PM)
I have a mormon friend. He wont drink coffee or tea, but he will drink doctor pepper.
The Word of Wisdom doesn't directly state no caffeine, it states "hot drinks". I believe it references caffeine, but that's my interpretation. We have been told that it does in fact reference coffee and tea, but aside from this it is left up to the individual.
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints my question is not so much about the church but I would like a personal opinion from another member.
My husband and I were married in the Temple in 2001 we have three kids born under the covenant and we had our life mapped out pretty much.
Now we are both inactive and although we both say to each other that if any church is true it is the Mormon Church neither of us make any effort to attend or read our scriptures or have family prayer any more. I feel we are both good people yet we have alot of guilt over not wanting to attend a church. We just no longer like going, (lame excuse) My husbands Dad was a Bishop and now he has been released and he is inactive as well. . . I don't know if it is related to my husbands lack of interest.
It is like our entire family is going through a religous famin. We were all so spiritual at one point and now we are burned out. I don't know how to get back to the way I used to be b/c I am afraid to pray. After all the questioning I have done and all the blessings God had giving me, how dare I think the things I do?
How do I get my testimony back. Were do I find the energy to go on Sundays, even if I have to go alone.
I think a part of me don't want to go back b/c it would make be diffrent from my husband. . .
I also have a more personal question that I would like to ask a member, but I don't want to post it wear everyone can see.
Thanks for your time.
My husband and I were married in the Temple in 2001 we have three kids born under the covenant and we had our life mapped out pretty much.
Now we are both inactive and although we both say to each other that if any church is true it is the Mormon Church neither of us make any effort to attend or read our scriptures or have family prayer any more. I feel we are both good people yet we have alot of guilt over not wanting to attend a church. We just no longer like going, (lame excuse) My husbands Dad was a Bishop and now he has been released and he is inactive as well. . . I don't know if it is related to my husbands lack of interest.
It is like our entire family is going through a religous famin. We were all so spiritual at one point and now we are burned out. I don't know how to get back to the way I used to be b/c I am afraid to pray. After all the questioning I have done and all the blessings God had giving me, how dare I think the things I do?
How do I get my testimony back. Were do I find the energy to go on Sundays, even if I have to go alone.
I think a part of me don't want to go back b/c it would make be diffrent from my husband. . .
I also have a more personal question that I would like to ask a member, but I don't want to post it wear everyone can see.
Thanks for your time.
QUOTE (gabolai @ May 11 2008, 04:07 PM)
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints my question is not so much about the church but I would like a personal opinion from another member.
My husband and I were married in the Temple in 2001 we have three kids born under the covenant and we had our life mapped out pretty much.
Now we are both inactive and although we both say to each other that if any church is true it is the Mormon Church neither of us make any effort to attend or read our scriptures or have family prayer any more. I feel we are both good people yet we have alot of guilt over not wanting to attend a church. We just no longer like going, (lame excuse) My husbands Dad was a Bishop and now he has been released and he is inactive as well. . . I don't know if it is related to my husbands lack of interest.
It is like our entire family is going through a religous famin. We were all so spiritual at one point and now we are burned out. I don't know how to get back to the way I used to be b/c I am afraid to pray. After all the questioning I have done and all the blessings God had giving me, how dare I think the things I do?
How do I get my testimony back. Were do I find the energy to go on Sundays, even if I have to go alone.
I think a part of me don't want to go back b/c it would make be diffrent from my husband. . .
I also have a more personal question that I would like to ask a member, but I don't want to post it wear everyone can see.
Thanks for your time.
My husband and I were married in the Temple in 2001 we have three kids born under the covenant and we had our life mapped out pretty much.
Now we are both inactive and although we both say to each other that if any church is true it is the Mormon Church neither of us make any effort to attend or read our scriptures or have family prayer any more. I feel we are both good people yet we have alot of guilt over not wanting to attend a church. We just no longer like going, (lame excuse) My husbands Dad was a Bishop and now he has been released and he is inactive as well. . . I don't know if it is related to my husbands lack of interest.
It is like our entire family is going through a religous famin. We were all so spiritual at one point and now we are burned out. I don't know how to get back to the way I used to be b/c I am afraid to pray. After all the questioning I have done and all the blessings God had giving me, how dare I think the things I do?
How do I get my testimony back. Were do I find the energy to go on Sundays, even if I have to go alone.
I think a part of me don't want to go back b/c it would make be diffrent from my husband. . .
I also have a more personal question that I would like to ask a member, but I don't want to post it wear everyone can see.
Thanks for your time.
You may PM me with other questions if you would like.
I wouldn't decide to become active again unless you and your husband are in complete agreement that you wish to be so again.
To gain a stronger feeling towards the church you need to be active. It's a lot like anything else, if you want to be a certain way, act that way. People expect a big spiritual event, there isn't all that frequently such a thing. My spiritual experiences have been minor in the impact they have had on me, the strongest impact on myself and my testimony has been my actions.
One of my favorite quotes is by John A. Widtsoe of the Quorumn of the Twelve Apostles:
"Doubt is not wrong unless it becomes an end of life. It rises to high dignity when it becomes an active search for, and practice of, truth."
This quote is taken from the following:
QUOTE
Evidences and Reconciliations. John A. Widtsoe
7. IS IT WRONG TO DOUBT?
Doubt usually means uncertainty. You doubt the presence of gold in the ore, though there are yellow flakes in it; or that the man is a thief, though stolen goods are found in his possession; or that a principle of the gospel is correctly interpreted by the speaker. What you really mean is that the evidence in your possession is insufficient to convince you that there is gold in the ore, or that the man is a thief, or that the gospel principle has been explained correctly. Doubt arises from lack of evidence.
Intelligent people cannot long endure such doubt. It must be resolved. Proof must be secured of the presence of gold in the ore, or of the dishonesty of the man, or of the correctness of the doctrinal exposition. Consequently, we set about to remove doubt by gathering information and making tests concerning the subject in question. Doubt, then, becomes converted into inquiry or investigation.
After proper inquiries, using all the powers at our command, the truth concerning the subject becomes known, or it remains unknown to be unravelled perhaps at some future time. The weight of evidence is on one side or the other. Doubt is removed. Doubt, therefore, can be and should be only a temporary condition. Certainly, a question cannot forever be suspended between heaven and earth; it is either answered or unanswered. As the results of an inquiry appear, doubt must flee.
In other words, doubt, which ever is or should be a passing condition, must never itself be an end. Doubt as an objective of life is an intellectual and a spiritual offense. A lasting doubt implies an unwillingness on the part of the individual to seek the solution of his problem, or a fear to face the truth. Doubt should vanish as it appears, or as soon as proper inquiry can place it either with the known or the unknown facts of life; with the solvable or the unsolvable; with the knowable or the unknowable.
The strong man is not afraid to say, "I do not know"; the weak man simpers and answers, "I doubt." Doubt, unless transmuted into inquiry, has no value or worth in the world. Of itself it has never lifted a brick, driven a nail, or turned a furrow. To take pride in being a doubter, without earnestly seeking to remove the doubt, is to reveal shallowness of thought and purpose.
Perhaps you are questioning the correctness of a gospel principle. Call it doubt if you prefer. Proceed to take it out of the region of doubt by examination and practice. Soon it will be understood, or left with the many things not yet within the reach of man. But remember: failure to understand one principle does not vitiate other principles. When proved false, one doctrine may cast distrust upon other doctrines, but the others must be tested for their own correctness.
Doubt of the right kind—that is, honest questioning—leads to faith. Such doubt impels men to inquiry which always opens the door to truth. The scientist in his laboratory, the explorer in distant parts, the prayerful man upon his knees—these and all inquirers like them find truth. They learn that some things are known, others are not. They cease to doubt. They settle down with the knowledge they possess to make the forces of nature do their bidding, knowing well that they will be victorious; and that more knowledge will come to them, if sought, to yield new power.
On the other hand, the stagnant doubter, one content with himself, unwilling to make the effort, to pay the price of discovery, inevitably reaches unbelief and miry darkness. His doubts grow like poisonous mushrooms in the dim shadows of his mental and spiritual chambers. At last, blind like the mole in his burrow, he usually substitutes ridicule for reason, and indolence for labor. The simplest truth is worth the sum of all such doubts. He joins the unhappy army of doubters who, weakened by their doubts, have at all periods of human history allowed others, men of faith, to move the world into increasing light.
Faith is practically the opposite of doubt. Faith rests securely upon "evidences" and "assurances." Note the definition by the Apostle Paul: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith knows, and goes forth courageously to use knowledge in the affairs of men. It declares itself the master of things; it lays mountains low; it lifts valleys; it promotes the welfare of man.
Joseph Smith is an excellent example of proper doubt. The ministers of his day were contending for the membership of the boy. He went to God for help; received it; and doubt disappeared. From that day on, doubt did not reappear. His doubt was lost in the desired knowledge he gained from proper inquiry. So may every man do.
The unknown universe, material, mental, spiritual, is greater than the known. If we seek, we shall forever add knowledge to knowledge. That which seems dark today, will be crystal clear tomorrow. Eternal progress means the unending elucidation of things not known or understood today.
No! Doubt is not wrong unless it becomes an end of life. It rises to high dignity when it becomes an active search for, and practice of, truth.
Doubt which immediately leads to honest inquiry, and thereby removes itself, is wholesome. But that doubt which feeds and grows upon itself, and, with stubborn indolence, breeds more doubt, is evil.
7. IS IT WRONG TO DOUBT?
Doubt usually means uncertainty. You doubt the presence of gold in the ore, though there are yellow flakes in it; or that the man is a thief, though stolen goods are found in his possession; or that a principle of the gospel is correctly interpreted by the speaker. What you really mean is that the evidence in your possession is insufficient to convince you that there is gold in the ore, or that the man is a thief, or that the gospel principle has been explained correctly. Doubt arises from lack of evidence.
Intelligent people cannot long endure such doubt. It must be resolved. Proof must be secured of the presence of gold in the ore, or of the dishonesty of the man, or of the correctness of the doctrinal exposition. Consequently, we set about to remove doubt by gathering information and making tests concerning the subject in question. Doubt, then, becomes converted into inquiry or investigation.
After proper inquiries, using all the powers at our command, the truth concerning the subject becomes known, or it remains unknown to be unravelled perhaps at some future time. The weight of evidence is on one side or the other. Doubt is removed. Doubt, therefore, can be and should be only a temporary condition. Certainly, a question cannot forever be suspended between heaven and earth; it is either answered or unanswered. As the results of an inquiry appear, doubt must flee.
In other words, doubt, which ever is or should be a passing condition, must never itself be an end. Doubt as an objective of life is an intellectual and a spiritual offense. A lasting doubt implies an unwillingness on the part of the individual to seek the solution of his problem, or a fear to face the truth. Doubt should vanish as it appears, or as soon as proper inquiry can place it either with the known or the unknown facts of life; with the solvable or the unsolvable; with the knowable or the unknowable.
The strong man is not afraid to say, "I do not know"; the weak man simpers and answers, "I doubt." Doubt, unless transmuted into inquiry, has no value or worth in the world. Of itself it has never lifted a brick, driven a nail, or turned a furrow. To take pride in being a doubter, without earnestly seeking to remove the doubt, is to reveal shallowness of thought and purpose.
Perhaps you are questioning the correctness of a gospel principle. Call it doubt if you prefer. Proceed to take it out of the region of doubt by examination and practice. Soon it will be understood, or left with the many things not yet within the reach of man. But remember: failure to understand one principle does not vitiate other principles. When proved false, one doctrine may cast distrust upon other doctrines, but the others must be tested for their own correctness.
Doubt of the right kind—that is, honest questioning—leads to faith. Such doubt impels men to inquiry which always opens the door to truth. The scientist in his laboratory, the explorer in distant parts, the prayerful man upon his knees—these and all inquirers like them find truth. They learn that some things are known, others are not. They cease to doubt. They settle down with the knowledge they possess to make the forces of nature do their bidding, knowing well that they will be victorious; and that more knowledge will come to them, if sought, to yield new power.
On the other hand, the stagnant doubter, one content with himself, unwilling to make the effort, to pay the price of discovery, inevitably reaches unbelief and miry darkness. His doubts grow like poisonous mushrooms in the dim shadows of his mental and spiritual chambers. At last, blind like the mole in his burrow, he usually substitutes ridicule for reason, and indolence for labor. The simplest truth is worth the sum of all such doubts. He joins the unhappy army of doubters who, weakened by their doubts, have at all periods of human history allowed others, men of faith, to move the world into increasing light.
Faith is practically the opposite of doubt. Faith rests securely upon "evidences" and "assurances." Note the definition by the Apostle Paul: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith knows, and goes forth courageously to use knowledge in the affairs of men. It declares itself the master of things; it lays mountains low; it lifts valleys; it promotes the welfare of man.
Joseph Smith is an excellent example of proper doubt. The ministers of his day were contending for the membership of the boy. He went to God for help; received it; and doubt disappeared. From that day on, doubt did not reappear. His doubt was lost in the desired knowledge he gained from proper inquiry. So may every man do.
The unknown universe, material, mental, spiritual, is greater than the known. If we seek, we shall forever add knowledge to knowledge. That which seems dark today, will be crystal clear tomorrow. Eternal progress means the unending elucidation of things not known or understood today.
No! Doubt is not wrong unless it becomes an end of life. It rises to high dignity when it becomes an active search for, and practice of, truth.
Doubt which immediately leads to honest inquiry, and thereby removes itself, is wholesome. But that doubt which feeds and grows upon itself, and, with stubborn indolence, breeds more doubt, is evil.
Just a clarification as to the LDS position on what is viewed as Christianity and what is not. I feel danielost has confused our position, or at the very least entirely mistated it.
The LDS believe that a Christian is anyone who professes a belief in Christ, regardless of their beliefs as to the nature of God and Christ, and strives to live a Christlike life. It may even be possible for a person to be considered Christian without a profession of belief in Christ, but this may be debated by various LDS.
The LDS believe that anyone who lives a life in conflict with charity and love of others is not Christian regardless of their profession of belief on the subject of Christ.
The LDS believe that a Christian is anyone who professes a belief in Christ, regardless of their beliefs as to the nature of God and Christ, and strives to live a Christlike life. It may even be possible for a person to be considered Christian without a profession of belief in Christ, but this may be debated by various LDS.
The LDS believe that anyone who lives a life in conflict with charity and love of others is not Christian regardless of their profession of belief on the subject of Christ.
QUOTE (Bee Eff @ Jun 7 2008, 10:24 PM)
Just a clarification as to the LDS position on what is viewed as Christianity and what is not. I feel danielost has confused our position, or at the very least entirely mistated it.
The LDS believe that a Christian is anyone who professes a belief in Christ, regardless of their beliefs as to the nature of God and Christ, and strives to live a Christlike life. It may even be possible for a person to be considered Christian without a profession of belief in Christ, but this may be debated by various LDS.
The LDS believe that anyone who lives a life in conflict with charity and love of others is not Christian regardless of their profession of belief on the subject of Christ.
The LDS believe that a Christian is anyone who professes a belief in Christ, regardless of their beliefs as to the nature of God and Christ, and strives to live a Christlike life. It may even be possible for a person to be considered Christian without a profession of belief in Christ, but this may be debated by various LDS.
The LDS believe that anyone who lives a life in conflict with charity and love of others is not Christian regardless of their profession of belief on the subject of Christ.
Sorry bee but maybe you should reread what I wrote. Again I never stated that the members of the catholic church were not christians I am sure many of them are. Just as I am sure that many members of the lds church are not.
I also believe that many buddiest could be considered to be christians in the way they live. I have also stated that not everyone who will make it to heaven will be christians or jewish. And, most christians including lds will not make it to heaven, I being one of them. Mainly becuase I have given up on the idea of getting there. Instead I have decided to take the punishment for the woman that I love because I feel that she has been punished enough in this life.
Just so you'll know she decided that her drugs were more important than me 7 years ago.
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 7 2008, 09:31 PM)
Sorry bee but maybe you should reread what I wrote. Again I never stated that the members of the catholic church were not christians I am sure many of them are. Just as I am sure that many members of the lds church are not.
I also believe that many buddiest could be considered to be christians in the way they live. I have also stated that not everyone who will make it to heaven will be christians or jewish. And, most christians including lds will not make it to heaven, I being one of them. Mainly becuase I have given up on the idea of getting there. Instead I have decided to take the punishment for the woman that I love because I feel that she has been punished enough in this life.
Just so you'll know she decided that her drugs were more important than me 7 years ago.
I also believe that many buddiest could be considered to be christians in the way they live. I have also stated that not everyone who will make it to heaven will be christians or jewish. And, most christians including lds will not make it to heaven, I being one of them. Mainly becuase I have given up on the idea of getting there. Instead I have decided to take the punishment for the woman that I love because I feel that she has been punished enough in this life.
Just so you'll know she decided that her drugs were more important than me 7 years ago.
I apologize if I misread your posts.
QUOTE (Bee Eff @ Jun 8 2008, 12:31 AM)
I apologize if I misread your posts.
no problem I have a hard time expressing myself that is why I try to keep it short.
This thread has been an awesome read and very informative!
I may not share your beliefs Bee Eff, but I certainly respect them and you. Offering up your religion to the scrutiny of others is not an easy thing to do, but you've done it gracefully.
I've learned quite a bit from this thread. Thanks!!!!
I may not share your beliefs Bee Eff, but I certainly respect them and you. Offering up your religion to the scrutiny of others is not an easy thing to do, but you've done it gracefully.
I've learned quite a bit from this thread. Thanks!!!!
Yes, Thank you brother Bee, You are an inspiration to all.
Your intepretation, and divotion to Love, Mother, Brother and Father are wonderfull, Thanks for starting this thread.
I love the Love.
Love Omnaka
Your intepretation, and divotion to Love, Mother, Brother and Father are wonderfull, Thanks for starting this thread.
I love the Love.
Love Omnaka
QUOTE (Jennie 1 @ Jun 8 2008, 01:06 AM)
This thread has been an awesome read and very informative!
I may not share your beliefs Bee Eff, but I certainly respect them and you. Offering up your religion to the scrutiny of others is not an easy thing to do, but you've done it gracefully.
I've learned quite a bit from this thread. Thanks!!!!
I may not share your beliefs Bee Eff, but I certainly respect them and you. Offering up your religion to the scrutiny of others is not an easy thing to do, but you've done it gracefully.
I've learned quite a bit from this thread. Thanks!!!!
QUOTE (Omnaka @ Jun 8 2008, 01:34 AM)
Yes, Thank you brother Bee, You are an inspiration to all.
Your intepretation, and divotion to Love, Mother, Brother and Father are wonderfull, Thanks for starting this thread.
I love the Love.
Love Omnaka
Your intepretation, and divotion to Love, Mother, Brother and Father are wonderfull, Thanks for starting this thread.
I love the Love.
Love Omnaka
Thank you, and you are welcome. The invitation to learn more about LDS beliefs is still open, if you ever have questions feel free to ask them.
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 7 2008, 09:31 PM)
I also believe that many buddiest could be considered to be christians in the way they live. I have also stated that not everyone who will make it to heaven will be christians or jewish. And, most christians including lds will not make it to heaven, I being one of them. Mainly becuase I have given up on the idea of getting there. Instead I have decided to take the punishment for the woman that I love because I feel that she has been punished enough in this life.
I was considering this and felt a need to correct you somewhat.
For the LDS, all three degrees of Glory, our Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial, are all Heaven. Hell, or in our terminology "Outer Darkness", is the only place outside Heaven. Outer Darkness can only be achieved by having a complete and full knowledge of God, Christ and the Holy Ghost, and still fight against them. There are but a handful of people in the entirety of this Earth's existence that are even capable of such let alone willing to do such. You will not go to Hell, from a Mormon perspective almost no one will go to Hell. Also, the degrees of Glory being commonly understood by LDS to be separated spacially may in fact be a fallacious belief as such has no support in the Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants).
The description of how you get to a different degree of glory is the following:
QUOTE
Doctrine and Covenants 88:29-39
28 They who are of a celestial spirit shall receive the same body which was a natural body; even ye shall receive your bodies, and your glory shall be that glory by which your bodies are quickened.
29 Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
30 And they who are quickened by a portion of the terrestrial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.
33 For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.
34 And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.
35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.
36 All kingdoms have a law given;
37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.
38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.
28 They who are of a celestial spirit shall receive the same body which was a natural body; even ye shall receive your bodies, and your glory shall be that glory by which your bodies are quickened.
29 Ye who are quickened by a portion of the celestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
30 And they who are quickened by a portion of the terrestrial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
31 And also they who are quickened by a portion of the telestial glory shall then receive of the same, even a fulness.
32 And they who remain shall also be quickened; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received.
33 For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.
34 And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same.
35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.
36 All kingdoms have a law given;
37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.
38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
39 All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.
Thus, you will live as you choose to live. If you wish to live a specific style of life, you can. There are simply expectations for each degree of glory which must be met to be justified in that degree of glory.
* Quick note, the term "kingdom" here is not referencing different kingdoms, but different glories. Thus they are not necessarily spacially separated from each other. Also, these "kingdoms" are all inside the Kingdom of God in LDS belief.
QUOTE (Bee Eff @ Jun 8 2008, 12:57 PM)
I was considering this and felt a need to correct you somewhat.
For the LDS, all three degrees of Glory, our Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial, are all Heaven. Hell, or in our terminology "Outer Darkness", is the only place outside Heaven. Outer Darkness can only be achieved by having a complete and full knowledge of God, Christ and the Holy Ghost, and still fight against them. There are but a handful of people in the entirety of this Earth's existence that are even capable of such let alone willing to do such. You will not go to Hell, from a Mormon perspective almost no one will go to Hell. Also, the degrees of Glory being commonly understood by LDS to be separated spacially may in fact be a fallacious belief as such has no support in the Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants).
The description of how you get to a different degree of glory is the following:
Thus, you will live as you choose to live. If you wish to live a specific style of life, you can. There are simply expectations for each degree of glory which must be met to be justified in that degree of glory.
* Quick note, the term "kingdom" here is not referencing different kingdoms, but different glories. Thus they are not necessarily spacially separated from each other. Also, these "kingdoms" are all inside the Kingdom of God in LDS belief.
For the LDS, all three degrees of Glory, our Telestial, Terrestrial and Celestial, are all Heaven. Hell, or in our terminology "Outer Darkness", is the only place outside Heaven. Outer Darkness can only be achieved by having a complete and full knowledge of God, Christ and the Holy Ghost, and still fight against them. There are but a handful of people in the entirety of this Earth's existence that are even capable of such let alone willing to do such. You will not go to Hell, from a Mormon perspective almost no one will go to Hell. Also, the degrees of Glory being commonly understood by LDS to be separated spacially may in fact be a fallacious belief as such has no support in the Standard Works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants).
The description of how you get to a different degree of glory is the following:
Thus, you will live as you choose to live. If you wish to live a specific style of life, you can. There are simply expectations for each degree of glory which must be met to be justified in that degree of glory.
* Quick note, the term "kingdom" here is not referencing different kingdoms, but different glories. Thus they are not necessarily spacially separated from each other. Also, these "kingdoms" are all inside the Kingdom of God in LDS belief.
Yes I know the example used for understanding is the sun, the moon, and the stars in order. but i was refering to the celestal kingdom
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 8 2008, 12:01 PM)
Yes I know the example used for understanding is the sun, the moon, and the stars in order. but i was refering to the celestal kingdom
I understand this, but I think those who are not LDS take our speaking of the Celestial Kingdom as Heaven as meaning that those not in that position are not in Heaven, which is innacurate. This leads to their incorrectly claiming that we must do something to get to Heaven, which is blatantly false. They then do not understand that everyone goes to Heaven in LDS belief. They then compare their view of Heaven to the Celestial Kingdom alone, which is a false comparison.
I recently noticed a few comments that begged the following questions:
What exactly is the Book of Mormon?
Is the Book of Mormon the Mormon Bible?
The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ. It is the record of the Biblical God's interaction with man in the Americas. It is a second witness of Christ. It is a companion to the Bible.
The LDS Church uses as its standard works: the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. None of these replace the Bible, the Bible is the Bible.
What exactly is the Book of Mormon?
Is the Book of Mormon the Mormon Bible?
The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ. It is the record of the Biblical God's interaction with man in the Americas. It is a second witness of Christ. It is a companion to the Bible.
The LDS Church uses as its standard works: the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. None of these replace the Bible, the Bible is the Bible.
QUOTE (Bee Eff @ Jun 23 2008, 08:52 PM)
I recently noticed a few comments that begged the following questions:
What exactly is the Book of Mormon?
Is the Book of Mormon the Mormon Bible?
The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ. It is the record of the Biblical God's interaction with man in the Americas. It is a second witness of Christ. It is a companion to the Bible.
The LDS Church uses as its standard works: the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. None of these replace the Bible, the Bible is the Bible.
What exactly is the Book of Mormon?
Is the Book of Mormon the Mormon Bible?
The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ. It is the record of the Biblical God's interaction with man in the Americas. It is a second witness of Christ. It is a companion to the Bible.
The LDS Church uses as its standard works: the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. None of these replace the Bible, the Bible is the Bible.
I explained what book of mormon and d and c in ways that they would understand. I didn't even try to touch the pearl of great price. Nor did I say any of them replaced the bible.
Are Mormons allowed to use computers?
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 23 2008, 08:13 PM)
I explained what book of mormon and d and c in ways that they would understand. I didn't even try to touch the pearl of great price. Nor did I say any of them replaced the bible.
NP, I just like to post answers here as this should be somewhere for people to look when they have a question, wasn't a commentary on your response.
QUOTE (Bill Hill @ Jun 23 2008, 09:20 PM)
Are Mormons allowed to use computers?
Lets see I am mormon and so is bee eff you decide.
We think God inspired the invention of the computer.
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 24 2008, 02:27 AM)
Lets see I am mormon and so is bee eff you decide.
We think God inspired the invention of the computer.
We think God inspired the invention of the computer.
They play Drumms too , I used to Jamm with the missionaries, They took pictures with their camera Phones Taking turns on the trap kit.
Love Omnaka
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 24 2008, 02:27 AM)
Lets see I am mormon and so is bee eff you decide.
We think God inspired the invention of the computer.
We think God inspired the invention of the computer.
Doesn't the PC have to be run on steam?
Or is that the quakers? Are quakers mormons?
QUOTE (Bill Hill @ Jun 23 2008, 07:32 PM)
Doesn't the PC have to be run on steam?
Or is that the quakers? Are quakers mormons?
Or is that the quakers? Are quakers mormons?
Don't make me give you a sonic wedgie Billy. This is an interesting thread.
But yes, as a Quaker I run my computer on steam, the steam also helps keep my horse I ride to work warm in the winter.
In summer, I run my computer on a potato battery as not to overheat my horse... with all that steam. Last I checked, Quakers are not Mormons, however, I like mormons quite well.
This is a good thread Bee_Eff... I apologize for being weak, I couldn't resist feeding the troll a little something
QUOTE (Bill Hill @ Jun 23 2008, 09:32 PM)
Doesn't the PC have to be run on steam?
Or is that the quakers? Are quakers mormons?
Or is that the quakers? Are quakers mormons?
QUOTE (MissMelsWell @ Jun 23 2008, 10:17 PM)
Don't make me give you a sonic wedgie Billy. This is an interesting thread.
But yes, as a Quaker I run my computer on steam, the steam also helps keep my horse I ride to work warm in the winter.
In summer, I run my computer on a potato battery as not to overheat my horse... with all that steam. Last I checked, Quakers are not Mormons, however, I like mormons quite well.
This is a good thread Bee_Eff... I apologize for being weak, I couldn't resist feeding the troll a little something
But yes, as a Quaker I run my computer on steam, the steam also helps keep my horse I ride to work warm in the winter.
In summer, I run my computer on a potato battery as not to overheat my horse... with all that steam. Last I checked, Quakers are not Mormons, however, I like mormons quite well.
This is a good thread Bee_Eff... I apologize for being weak, I couldn't resist feeding the troll a little something
.lol at both.
by the way miss well isn't steam considered technology.
Just for those of you who want to know why.
I stopped going to church 20 years ago because a bishop. Was gloating about how he had gotten the singles ward out of his building so he could have more parking. This was in San Fran.
I stopped going to church 20 years ago because a bishop. Was gloating about how he had gotten the singles ward out of his building so he could have more parking. This was in San Fran.
QUOTE (MissMelsWell @ Jun 24 2008, 03:17 AM)
Don't make me give you a sonic wedgie Billy. This is an interesting thread.
But yes, as a Quaker I run my computer on steam, the steam also helps keep my horse I ride to work warm in the winter.
In summer, I run my computer on a potato battery as not to overheat my horse... with all that steam. Last I checked, Quakers are not Mormons, however, I like mormons quite well.
But yes, as a Quaker I run my computer on steam, the steam also helps keep my horse I ride to work warm in the winter.
In summer, I run my computer on a potato battery as not to overheat my horse... with all that steam. Last I checked, Quakers are not Mormons, however, I like mormons quite well.
that was funny MissMelsWell...see, feels good....not bad.
I know it's the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs section... where pretty much everyone accuses everyone of being troll.
But it's good to lighten the mood now 'n' again...
I'm gone.
QUOTE (MissMelsWell @ Jun 24 2008, 04:17 AM)
Don't make me give you a sonic wedgie Billy. This is an interesting thread.
But yes, as a Quaker I run my computer on steam, the steam also helps keep my horse I ride to work warm in the winter.
In summer, I run my computer on a potato battery as not to overheat my horse... with all that steam. Last I checked, Quakers are not Mormons, however, I like mormons quite well.
This is a good thread Bee_Eff... I apologize for being weak, I couldn't resist feeding the troll a little something
But yes, as a Quaker I run my computer on steam, the steam also helps keep my horse I ride to work warm in the winter.
In summer, I run my computer on a potato battery as not to overheat my horse... with all that steam. Last I checked, Quakers are not Mormons, however, I like mormons quite well.
This is a good thread Bee_Eff... I apologize for being weak, I couldn't resist feeding the troll a little something
Verrry Funnny.
Love Omnaka
QUOTE (danielost @ Jun 24 2008, 12:27 PM)
Lets see I am mormon and so is bee eff you decide.
We think God inspired the invention of the computer.
We think God inspired the invention of the computer.
When it comes to technology that we discover, do you think that it's because we were meant to discover them? As far as space travel, computers etc.
Where do Mormons stand on cloning and using stem cells etc? If these technologies aren't abused and used only to extend the lifespan and cure illnesses, is there anything morally wrong with them? I only ask because most Christians are against these technologies because we're 'playing god'. But do you think that 'God' wanted us to 'play God'?
-Josh
I actually believe a lot of great technological and scientific discoveries are "God inspired" that includes literature, art, law, etc.. as well.
Now whether people know it's God inspired is another story all together... but some things are so incredibly beautiful and perfect and astounding (including science, math and other mechanical things), that it's almost hard to deny it wasn't inspired by something entirely ethereal. At least for me anyway.
Now whether people know it's God inspired is another story all together... but some things are so incredibly beautiful and perfect and astounding (including science, math and other mechanical things), that it's almost hard to deny it wasn't inspired by something entirely ethereal. At least for me anyway.
QUOTE (MissMelsWell @ Jun 25 2008, 10:41 PM)
I actually believe a lot of great technological and scientific discoveries are "God inspired" that includes literature, art, law, etc.. as well.
Now whether people know it's God inspired is another story all together... but some things are so incredibly beautiful and perfect and astounding (including science, math and other mechanical things), that it's almost hard to deny it wasn't inspired by something entirely ethereal. At least for me anyway.
Now whether people know it's God inspired is another story all together... but some things are so incredibly beautiful and perfect and astounding (including science, math and other mechanical things), that it's almost hard to deny it wasn't inspired by something entirely ethereal. At least for me anyway.
I agree
QUOTE (archangel_josh @ Jun 25 2008, 08:09 PM)
When it comes to technology that we discover, do you think that it's because we were meant to discover them? As far as space travel, computers etc.
Where do Mormons stand on cloning and using stem cells etc? If these technologies aren't abused and used only to extend the lifespan and cure illnesses, is there anything morally wrong with them? I only ask because most Christians are against these technologies because we're 'playing god'. But do you think that 'God' wanted us to 'play God'?
-Josh
Where do Mormons stand on cloning and using stem cells etc? If these technologies aren't abused and used only to extend the lifespan and cure illnesses, is there anything morally wrong with them? I only ask because most Christians are against these technologies because we're 'playing god'. But do you think that 'God' wanted us to 'play God'?
-Josh
If using stem cells led to the premature end of life, which we as LDS believe starts sometime between conception and birth, we would be against such. At present the harvesting of fetal stem cells requires such, other forms may be acceptable. If we are using naturally ocurring miscarriage or other naturally expired life, I cannot see how such would be against our moral position, we support organ donation.
As to science, I think the following states our position well (keep in mind the time period he was speaking when he references scientific facts verses intference, as some inferences have been made fact since the time he wrote the text):
QUOTE
Evidences and Reconciliations. John A. Widtsoe (1872-1952), Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
25. WHAT IS THE ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH TOWARD SCIENCE?
This question, frequently asked, is readily answered.
The Church, the custodian of the gospel on earth, looks with full favor upon the attempts of men to search out the facts and laws of nature. It believes that men of science, seekers after truth, are often assisted by the Spirit of the Lord in such researches. It holds further that every scientific discovery may be incorporated into the gospel, and that, therefore, there can be no conflict between true religion and correct science. The Church teaches that the laws of nature are but the immutable laws of the Creator of the universe.
This view has been held consistently by the Latter-day Saints from the organization of the Church. A revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1832, when science was yet in its swaddling clothes, declares:
And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.
Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand.
Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—...
And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. (D. & C. 88:77, 78, 79, 118)
President Brigham Young frequently expressed support of the labors of men of science. For example, in one of his sermons he said:
I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood.... In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp.397, 398)
President Joseph F. Smith made similar statements:
We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.... True science is that system of reasoning which brings to the fore the simple, plain truth. (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, pp. 1, 6)
The gospel and science have the same objective—the discovery and possession of truth—all truth. Hence follows the attitude of the Church toward science expressed at the head of this chapter. However, science has been content, until recently, to study the material universe, and to leave its findings without reference to their possible effect upon human conduct. The gospel on the other hand is primarily concerned with the manner in which truth is used in the spiritual field, that is, with human conduct. For example, science has discovered explosives of great power, and has shown how by their use rocks may be shattered or projectiles shot through the air, and has left this knowledge without comment as to its proper use. The gospel teaches that this new power be not used in warfare, for wars are evil, but that it be used in the peaceful arts of man. The gospel deals with right and wrong; science as yet has scarcely touched this field. The gospel accepts God as the author of all knowledge; science gathers facts and tries to interpret them, without reference to a Supreme Being. In short, the gospel is the more inclusive; present-day science, less inclusive. In the end, the two must become as one, for their common objective is truth.
The Church holds that the methods used by science to discover truth are legitimate. Indeed, all instruments and means developed for the exploration of nature are welcomed. The Church claims the right to employ, in addition, such processes as are peculiarly fitted to its search for truth in the spiritual domain, which in turn may become tools in the advancement of a future science freed from its present material bondage. In this wholehearted acceptance of science, the Church makes, as must every sane thinker, two reservations:
First, the facts which are the building blocks of science must be honestly and accurately observed. In science, as in every human activity, dishonesty, carelessness, or aberrations of senses or mind may be encountered. The Church expects science to present accurately observed and fully corroborated facts. Loose methods of study are not acceptable. Indeed, the vast body of scientific facts has been so carefully garnered that it may in the main be accepted without question.
Second, the interpretations of observed facts must be distinctly labeled as inferences, and not confused with facts. The human mind properly attempts to explain or interpret the phenomena of nature, the facts of observation. A pencil looks bent in a glass of water. Why? asks the eager thinking mind. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Why? Does the sun move around the earth, or does the earth revolve upon its axis, to give the effect of day and night? The answers to such questions are explanations or interpretations, really inferences, often called hypotheses or theories. These do not have the certain value of facts, for they usually change as new facts are brought forward. For example, with the knowledge at his command, Newton advanced the theory that light consists of particles; later, Young explained the phenomena of light as forms of wave motion; today with increasing knowledge both of these theories are questioned, and another one is in the making. Meanwhile, the phenomena of light remain unchanged; they are the same today as in the time of Newton. Occasionally, but seldom, an inference such as the cause of night and day becomes so well supported by discovered facts that it assumes the dignity of a fact. Most inferences, however, are in a condition of constant change, due to the continuing accumulation of new knowledge.
Dr. Albert Einstein, author of the relativity theory, speaks of scientists as men who seek solutions of the mysteries in the book of nature (Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, pp. 1, 5). He insists that nature's mystery story is not only still unsolved but may not have a final solution. All that man can do is to collect facts, arrange them in an orderly fashion, and then to make them understandable by "creative thought"—that is, by the formulation of inferences, explanations, interpretations, hypotheses or theories, whatever the name may be.
In this particular do Latter-day Saints, in common with all thinkers, sound a warning to science. There must be a distinct segregation of facts and inferences in the utterances of scientific men. Readers of science should always keep this difference in mind. Even well-established inferences should not lose their inferential label. The facts discovered by an eminent investigator may be safely accepted; his explanations may be of doubtful value.
It is within recent time that Millikan and Compton, both Nobel prize winners, held widely differing explanations of the nature of "cosmic rays." And, recently, also, the discovery of the skull of a prehistoric ape with a set of human-like teeth has overthrown the inference that teeth are always true indications of the place of a fossil in the evolutionary scale. With respect to this latter matter, there was pathos in the remark of the famous anthropologist, Sir Arthur Keith, that "This discovery has destroyed the finer points we anthropologists depend on for drawing the line between anthropoid and man."
In summary: The Church supports and welcomes the growth of science. It asks only that the facts of science be as accurately determined as human powers permit, and that confusion between facts of science and inferences of science be earnestly avoided.
The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth.
25. WHAT IS THE ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH TOWARD SCIENCE?
This question, frequently asked, is readily answered.
The Church, the custodian of the gospel on earth, looks with full favor upon the attempts of men to search out the facts and laws of nature. It believes that men of science, seekers after truth, are often assisted by the Spirit of the Lord in such researches. It holds further that every scientific discovery may be incorporated into the gospel, and that, therefore, there can be no conflict between true religion and correct science. The Church teaches that the laws of nature are but the immutable laws of the Creator of the universe.
This view has been held consistently by the Latter-day Saints from the organization of the Church. A revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1832, when science was yet in its swaddling clothes, declares:
And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.
Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand.
Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—...
And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith. (D. & C. 88:77, 78, 79, 118)
President Brigham Young frequently expressed support of the labors of men of science. For example, in one of his sermons he said:
I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood.... In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp.397, 398)
President Joseph F. Smith made similar statements:
We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.... True science is that system of reasoning which brings to the fore the simple, plain truth. (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, pp. 1, 6)
The gospel and science have the same objective—the discovery and possession of truth—all truth. Hence follows the attitude of the Church toward science expressed at the head of this chapter. However, science has been content, until recently, to study the material universe, and to leave its findings without reference to their possible effect upon human conduct. The gospel on the other hand is primarily concerned with the manner in which truth is used in the spiritual field, that is, with human conduct. For example, science has discovered explosives of great power, and has shown how by their use rocks may be shattered or projectiles shot through the air, and has left this knowledge without comment as to its proper use. The gospel teaches that this new power be not used in warfare, for wars are evil, but that it be used in the peaceful arts of man. The gospel deals with right and wrong; science as yet has scarcely touched this field. The gospel accepts God as the author of all knowledge; science gathers facts and tries to interpret them, without reference to a Supreme Being. In short, the gospel is the more inclusive; present-day science, less inclusive. In the end, the two must become as one, for their common objective is truth.
The Church holds that the methods used by science to discover truth are legitimate. Indeed, all instruments and means developed for the exploration of nature are welcomed. The Church claims the right to employ, in addition, such processes as are peculiarly fitted to its search for truth in the spiritual domain, which in turn may become tools in the advancement of a future science freed from its present material bondage. In this wholehearted acceptance of science, the Church makes, as must every sane thinker, two reservations:
First, the facts which are the building blocks of science must be honestly and accurately observed. In science, as in every human activity, dishonesty, carelessness, or aberrations of senses or mind may be encountered. The Church expects science to present accurately observed and fully corroborated facts. Loose methods of study are not acceptable. Indeed, the vast body of scientific facts has been so carefully garnered that it may in the main be accepted without question.
Second, the interpretations of observed facts must be distinctly labeled as inferences, and not confused with facts. The human mind properly attempts to explain or interpret the phenomena of nature, the facts of observation. A pencil looks bent in a glass of water. Why? asks the eager thinking mind. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Why? Does the sun move around the earth, or does the earth revolve upon its axis, to give the effect of day and night? The answers to such questions are explanations or interpretations, really inferences, often called hypotheses or theories. These do not have the certain value of facts, for they usually change as new facts are brought forward. For example, with the knowledge at his command, Newton advanced the theory that light consists of particles; later, Young explained the phenomena of light as forms of wave motion; today with increasing knowledge both of these theories are questioned, and another one is in the making. Meanwhile, the phenomena of light remain unchanged; they are the same today as in the time of Newton. Occasionally, but seldom, an inference such as the cause of night and day becomes so well supported by discovered facts that it assumes the dignity of a fact. Most inferences, however, are in a condition of constant change, due to the continuing accumulation of new knowledge.
Dr. Albert Einstein, author of the relativity theory, speaks of scientists as men who seek solutions of the mysteries in the book of nature (Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, pp. 1, 5). He insists that nature's mystery story is not only still unsolved but may not have a final solution. All that man can do is to collect facts, arrange them in an orderly fashion, and then to make them understandable by "creative thought"—that is, by the formulation of inferences, explanations, interpretations, hypotheses or theories, whatever the name may be.
In this particular do Latter-day Saints, in common with all thinkers, sound a warning to science. There must be a distinct segregation of facts and inferences in the utterances of scientific men. Readers of science should always keep this difference in mind. Even well-established inferences should not lose their inferential label. The facts discovered by an eminent investigator may be safely accepted; his explanations may be of doubtful value.
It is within recent time that Millikan and Compton, both Nobel prize winners, held widely differing explanations of the nature of "cosmic rays." And, recently, also, the discovery of the skull of a prehistoric ape with a set of human-like teeth has overthrown the inference that teeth are always true indications of the place of a fossil in the evolutionary scale. With respect to this latter matter, there was pathos in the remark of the famous anthropologist, Sir Arthur Keith, that "This discovery has destroyed the finer points we anthropologists depend on for drawing the line between anthropoid and man."
In summary: The Church supports and welcomes the growth of science. It asks only that the facts of science be as accurately determined as human powers permit, and that confusion between facts of science and inferences of science be earnestly avoided.
The religion of the Latter-day Saints is not hostile to any truth, nor to scientific search for truth.
Wow, thanks for that Bee_Eff, that was incredibly interesting and an enjoyable read. With attitudes like that, it's no wonder BYU is such a well respected university.
QUOTE (Bee Eff @ Jun 27 2008, 09:26 AM)
If using stem cells led to the premature end of life, which we as LDS believe starts sometime between conception and birth, we would be against such. At present the harvesting of fetal stem cells requires such, other forms may be acceptable. If we are using naturally ocurring miscarriage or other naturally expired life, I cannot see how such would be against our moral position, we support organ donation.
As to science, I think the following states our position well (keep in mind the time period he was speaking when he references scientific facts verses intference, as some inferences have been made fact since the time he wrote the text):
As to science, I think the following states our position well (keep in mind the time period he was speaking when he references scientific facts verses intference, as some inferences have been made fact since the time he wrote the text):
Awesome - thanks for the answer and the article. I too believe that man was designed to discover technologies and to better himself through science (not by a God, but by people from another planet).
Thanks again.
-Josh
QUOTE (archangel_josh @ Jun 26 2008, 08:09 PM)
Awesome - thanks for the answer and the article. I too believe that man was designed to discover technologies and to better himself through science (not by a God, but by people from another planet).
Thanks again.
-Josh
Thanks again.
-Josh
You're welcome.
QUOTE (marabod @ Jul 24 2008, 12:16 AM)
Mormons are not even Christians! (They do not agree on Nicene Creed and form a separate religion with completely different theology.)
You are incorrect as to "completely different theology" and not Christian. From your statement here, you are a Creedal Christian, most frequently referencing the Nicene Creed. This Nicene Creed was defined more than 300 years after the death of Christ, it required an extra-Biblical statement to achieve an understanding of the belief. LDS believe that only God may add to scripture, this requires a prophet to recieve such revelation. The Nicene Creed does not meet this criteria, as such we do not take hold of it.
We, LDS, follow the Bible. Our main difference with mainstream Christianity is the the nature of God. Trinitarian dogma is flawed and incorrect from our point of view. Modalism is also flawed and incorrect from our perspective. LDS have often been termed polytheistic, which is flawed as we do not believe in the worship of more than one God or that such is viable in any sense. We do however believe that God the Father is a God (The God of all Man) and Jesus Christ is a God as well. The position of the Holy Ghost/Spirit is slightly speculative, but we generally view Him as a God as well. Man is the progeny of God the Father, and thus we have the potential to become like him, and indeed even Christ stated, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"(John 10:34) when justifying his position as God. Thus, we believe in multiple gods, but only one God (i.e. Deity that is worshipped.)
To state that the LDS are not Christian is incorrect. You can freely state that we are not creedal Christians or that we are not mainstream Christians, but to make a blanket statement that we are not Christian is false. You must define and add qualifiers to the term Christian before stating that we are not such.
Here is an interesting article by a LDS author: Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity
QUOTE (marabod @ Jul 24 2008, 12:16 AM)
The discussion was more or less in the line with traditional religious sources, because the general concept of sin was discussed, and I am unaware what sin means for LDS followers.
Sin is to behave contrary to the will of God.
LDS do not believe that Man is bound by "original sin". "[Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression" (Articles of Faith 2). We believe that Christ paid the price for the transgression in the Garden, allowing all Mankind the possibility to return to Heaven and live in the presence of God. We also believe that in doing this he satisfied the demands of justice for our sins, if we accept Christ's offering.
QUOTE (Irish @ Jan 22 2008, 08:17 PM)
Ok a couple of questions to start the ball rolling..
Is it true that your secret temple oaths are based on the Scottish Rite Masons.
Is it true before 1978 Mormons considered the Negro race inferior, and even one drop of Negro blood prevented a person from entering their priesthood.
Is it true that according to Anton Lavey's Satanic Bible, the demon god of the living dead is called "Mormo". Is it just a coincidence that the Mormons are so concerned with the dead?
Is it true that their Prophet Joseph Smith did not die as a martyr as they claim, but was killed during a gun battle in which he himself killed two men and wounded a third.
Is it true that Joseph Smith taught that there were inhabitants on the moon, and Brigham Young taught there were inhabitants on the sun as well!
sorry but one last thing.Is it true that Prophet Joseph Smith prophesied falsely many times. For example, he foretold the second coming of Christ for 1891. The Bible teaches that one false prophecy puts the prophet under death sentence. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
Thank you for you time in answering these.
All the Best
Irish
Is it true that your secret temple oaths are based on the Scottish Rite Masons.
Is it true before 1978 Mormons considered the Negro race inferior, and even one drop of Negro blood prevented a person from entering their priesthood.
Is it true that according to Anton Lavey's Satanic Bible, the demon god of the living dead is called "Mormo". Is it just a coincidence that the Mormons are so concerned with the dead?
Is it true that their Prophet Joseph Smith did not die as a martyr as they claim, but was killed during a gun battle in which he himself killed two men and wounded a third.
Is it true that Joseph Smith taught that there were inhabitants on the moon, and Brigham Young taught there were inhabitants on the sun as well!
sorry but one last thing.Is it true that Prophet Joseph Smith prophesied falsely many times. For example, he foretold the second coming of Christ for 1891. The Bible teaches that one false prophecy puts the prophet under death sentence. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
Thank you for you time in answering these.
All the Best
Irish
You ARE NOT going to get a true answer about these questions from an actual Mormon. In fact, you'll probably get some song & whine about being persecuted.
Looks to me like you already know the answers to these inquiries, just in the asking.
Isn't it some kind of Latter-Day sin to be on a web site that deals with most of the topics here?
Based on my relatives and experience...I'm thinking it's frowned upon by your Overlords.
Based on my relatives and experience...I'm thinking it's frowned upon by your Overlords.
QUOTE (Blondicide @ Jul 27 2008, 01:34 AM)
You ARE NOT going to get a true answer about these questions from an actual Mormon. In fact, you'll probably get some song & whine about being persecuted.
Looks to me like you already know the answers to these inquiries, just in the asking.
Looks to me like you already know the answers to these inquiries, just in the asking.
Those questions were answered.
QUOTE (Blondicide @ Jul 27 2008, 01:39 AM)
Isn't it some kind of Latter-Day sin to be on a web site that deals with most of the topics here?
Based on my relatives and experience...I'm thinking it's frowned upon by your Overlords.
Based on my relatives and experience...I'm thinking it's frowned upon by your Overlords.
What are you talking about. Overlords?
QUOTE (Mad Manfred @ Jan 22 2008, 08:51 PM)
Why do mormons find the word "Mormon" offensive?
I referred to my uncle as one once (I wasn't being sarcastic or mean) to which he took immediate offense to and asked me to not call him that again.
(he converted from Catholicism, ditched his wife and seven kids and started a new family in another state, btw, complete jerkoff, not that I blame mormons or anything, just saying)
I referred to my uncle as one once (I wasn't being sarcastic or mean) to which he took immediate offense to and asked me to not call him that again.
(he converted from Catholicism, ditched his wife and seven kids and started a new family in another state, btw, complete jerkoff, not that I blame mormons or anything, just saying)
sorry about this late response. But if your uncle did this to his family because he joined the church you are right he is a jerk. As for being called a Mormon it is like calling a gay man a fag. They call us Mormons to make us seem less Christian and to remind everyone that we use the book of Mormon instead of the bible. But the problem is we use the book of Mormon to back up the bible.
Is the south park story of mormonism anywhere near accurate?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.