No, its just the Killers, I checked.

Rolling Stone did an article last year called "Latter-Day Hipsters", about Mormons in Rock...but i hadnt heard of most of them, so I didnt remember

I noticed in your sig you had "Chick Tact's"(sp?). What is your view on the man, his books, and his attacks on various culture and subgroups?

I find Jack Chick to be too funny. He heavily relies on the fear of Hell(TM) in order to attempt conversions. This, of course, requires a pre-existing belief in Hell.

I really like how the 'bad' people in his tracts have scrunched-up faces. :)

Yeah, Jack Chick is hilarious. When I was a missionary, someone left his anti-Mormon tract on our windshield. I had read it before, but it was still funny. This (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3694178&postcount=35) is my response.

I actually started reading Harry Potter because I figure anything he criticizes must be okay. He already had me for Mormonism and evolution, why not go for three?

This is actually indicative of an odd phenomenon I noticed. Anytime someone would start "bashing" us, invariably in their attacks they would throw in a few criticisms of another religion (usually Catholics, occasionally Jehovah's Witnesses). I thus found myself in the odd position of being a Mormon defending Catholicism to a Protestant.

Yeah, Jack Chick is hilarious. When I was a missionary, someone left his anti-Mormon tract on our windshield. I had read it before, but it was still funny. This (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3694178&postcount=35) is my response.

I actually started reading Harry Potter because I figure anything he criticizes must be okay. He already had me for Mormonism and evolution, why not go for three?

This is actually indicative of an odd phenomenon I noticed. Anytime someone would start "bashing" us, invariably in their attacks they would throw in a few criticisms of another religion (usually Catholics, occasionally Jehovah's Witnesses). I thus found myself in the odd position of being a Mormon defending Catholicism to a Protestant.
Great stuff. :lol: Jack Chick is awesome. (In a ridiculous way)His tracts are so awful, I sometimes wonder if he actually believes what he's writing.

I mean sometimes I agree with his underlying points - like I disagree with a lot of things the Catholic Church teaches, theologically - but how he says it, in his little absurd tract, and his whole thing about how Catholics are going to hell because the Pope isn't mentioned in the Bible is hilarious. His tract (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0093/0093_01.asp) on the Freemasons is pure comedy gold; I especially love how the Freemasons look really haggard, and have dark areas around their eyes, and after they repent of being Masons, their son automatically get's better from his "suicide attempt". Sure, Freemasonry is kinda weird, but Satan worshipping witches? :lol: Hilarious.

Great stuff. :lol: Jack Chick is awesome. (In a ridiculous way)His tracts are so awful, I sometimes wonder if he actually believes what he's writing.

I mean sometimes I agree with his underlying points - like I disagree with a lot of things the Catholic Church teaches, theologically - but how he says it, in his little absurd tract, and his whole thing about how Catholics are going to hell because the Pope isn't mentioned in the Bible is hilarious. His tract (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0093/0093_01.asp) on the Freemasons is pure comedy gold; I especially love how the Freemasons look really haggard, and have dark areas around their eyes, and after they repent of being Masons, their son automatically get's better from his "suicide attempt". Sure, Freemasonry is kinda weird, but Satan worshipping witches? :lol: Hilarious.
I've read that one. He really does cross a line though. Basically, what this might do is to get people who's family has suffered through a suicide into doubting wheather or not they had some hand in it.

And no comments about the feebleminded being the only ones who might doubt themselves based on this jackass's book. Suicide is a horrible thing and those who's family member does it can and will grasp at almost anything. Even the things that will delve into the absurd.

He really insults the Mormons due to that? That is really weak.

I personally like the holocaust one. In it, he simultaneosly insults the Jews, the Catholics, various presidents, and proves that he is a complete f***ing moron.

Ah here it is... http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0054/0054_01.asp

Also notice how every referal to a source other than the Bible, are to books written by members of his cult, and most are actually published by Chick's publication company/cult.

Hmm... His "things to do" seems a little out of order.

THINGS TO DO

* Home
* Place Order
* Search
* Free Catalog
* Online Reading
* Meet Jesus
* Take Survey
Apparently he wants you to place an order BEFORE you "meet Jesus".

I am a Baptist, and I hate Jack Chick.

Back on-topic, do Mormon's in general believe in evolution and read Harry Potter? By in general I mean not an extremist.

Are there any extremist Mormon groups trying to ban HP that you know of? Or for that matter, evolution?

:lol: Oh man, that's the funniest one yet. The Holocaust orchestrated by the Catholic Church, what a joke. (Evidently they haven't heard about the Catholic priests who died in the concentration camps.)

The funniest part was when he was talking about how Catholicism is going to become the only recognized religion in America and take over like some bad Twilight Zone episode. I literally just cracked up when he got to the part about how Reagan and Clinton (http://www.chick.com/tractimages21197/0054/0054_16.gif) were members of this gigantic conspiracy. Another really amusing bit was when he "notes" (http://www.chick.com/tractimages21197/0054/0054_17.gif) that Billy Graham helped Reagan with his reconciliation with the Vatican - WHERE DOES THE CONSPIRACY END?! :lol:

This stuff is hilarious, he rivals Peter Popoff (http://peterpopoff.org/) for most ridiculous "evangelist" ever.

Evolution is taught at BYU, the church-owned University in Provo Utah. I dont think the church has ever felt the need to take a stand on Harry Potter or anything. My family, including my parents, love the book, as do many of our LDS friends.

I know of a few Mormons who dont really believe in Evolution, but that might be a product of living around po-dunk Ohio, where lots of people of all stripes dont. I only know one LDS family who won't let their kids read HP books. In any church, there are a few weirdos....but they dont orginize and try to ban stuff or anything.

Yeah, the Church made a doctrinal statement back in 1909ish I believe, saying that humans are not merely the product of evolution but an act of special creation. Then 5 months later issued a clarifying statement to the effect that by that they were referring not to our bodies but to our souls. Nowadays the church basically says, "we are not going to get involved in science here; if you want to believe the earth was created in 6 days or whatever, be our guest." This excerpt (http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/evolution.htm) explains in a little more detail. I know lots of Mormons who don't accept evolution, but they tend to be older, and often converts to the church, so I blame society as a whole. All the scientifically literate members I know accept it.

As far as Harry Potter, I can't imagine why the leadership of the church would take a stand against it. It is no more diabolical than an Orson Scott Card novel.

Yeah, Jack Chick is hilarious. When I was a missionary, someone left his anti-Mormon tract on our windshield. I had read it before, but it was still funny. This (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3694178&postcount=35) is my response.


Seriously, though, is there any type of literature-destruction or banning that you know of? I mean, other than for fun, like you picture there.

I mean, I have heard of people burning their DnD books or their books on meditation - is literature destruction an element at all?

Do mormons ever go door to door? If so, have you ever done that?
How does it feel like when you are rejected?

Seriously, though, is there any type of literature-destruction or banning that you know of? I mean, other than for fun, like you picture there.

I mean, I have heard of people burning their DnD books or their books on meditation - is literature destruction an element at all?

Other than in my picture there, and perhaps other cases, we are not so big into the burning or banning or whatever. It made national news when the owner of the Utah Jazz (who I assume is LDS) banned Brokeback Mountain from playing in movie theaters he owned (Heath Ledger was quoted as saying that homosexuality isn't controversial, which strikes me as an odd thing to say) but I can't think of any other cases.

Do Mormons ever go door to door? If so, have you ever done that? How does it feel like when you are rejected?

Our missionaries do, yes, although it is a small part of our proselyting. I did it for two years on my mission. When someone rejects us, our reaction is, "meh, let's go to the next house."

How do people generally react when you show up on their doorstep to talk about god?

Personally I think it's sort of annoying. Why do you guys do it anyway?

we recently got jehovahs witnesses here. pretended not to be home :mischief:
that ever happen to you? people pretending not to be home i mean.

@Pyrite and Dionysius:

Missionaries make an effort not to be annoying at people's doors. We are polite and friendly, and can tell pretty quickly whether someone wants to talk to us or not. If people are annoyed by our presence, we do not apologize for having bothered them but we do try not to waste their time. And we can usually tell if someone is home but pretending not to be (or if they are lying to us), but we don't bother doing anything about it, just on to the next house. Like I said this is a low-yield method of finding people so there is no reason to invest a lot of time in someone who doesn't want to listen to us.

But, why do you guys do it? What's the motivation ?

gain converts, i expect. is missionary work expected of mormons?
in the way catholics have to get confirmation. gad, i swore in front of the bishop... [banged me knee kneeling on the marble step]

Why do we engage in missionary work? To help the church grow, and as we see it, to spread the Gospel and help others experience it. Why do we go door-to-door? it's one way of finding people to teach. It isn't mandatory, but there is sort of a cultural expectation that if you are active in church, you will go. Plus, when Mormon girls are looking for potential husbands, having been a missionary is a huge plus. (It's all about the women, right?)

Plus, it's great exercise; I mean, walking every evening for a couple hours keeps the weight off.

Plus, it's great exercise; I mean, walking every evening for a couple hours keeps the weight off.

That depends on where you are. I was in a car most of the time because I had to cover a lot of ground; that plus Mexican food gave me 40 extra pounds. On the other hand, whenever I was riding a bike I tended to be in better shape.

This post will be to explain why I think the Book of Mormon, and the claims it makes, are plausible. I am not trying to convince anyone or prove anything, just to state my feelings on the matter.

First of all, I am going to look at the book's purported origins as explained by Joseph Smith. He said that in response to a prayer, an angel (named Moroni, and incidentally the angel statues on top of most of our temples are of him) appeared to him and explained that he would be involved in a great work. This angel then showed him a spot on a hill where a set of plates of gold, as well as a few other things, were buried. However, he was not allowed to actually dig them up until 4 years later. He then began translating them and the translation is known as the Book of Mormon.

Sound fanciful, almost like a fairy tale? Sure, I will admit it does. I mean, an angel appearing to someone and showing him where to find something? Well, the appearance of angels is a major motif in all the Abrahamic religions. If an angel could appear to Jacob, or to Paul, or to Mohammad, why not to Joseph Smith? Just because he is modern enough to have a last name doesn't mean he is too modern to receive visits from angels. If you don't think angels can appear to people, then clearly his story isn't the only one to which you object. I for one see it as plausible, given what I can understand about the universe, but not something I would believe without a lot more proof than merely his word.

And what of the plates? After all, Smith said the angel took them back. Of course, you say, saves the trouble of explaining why they don't exist, which clearly they didn't; or that they were obviously fake. Well, a great number of "ancient artifacts" proven later to be fakes have been made throughout history. In every case, the faker showed the object to people as proof, and in every case I know, later analysis, using methods not available at the time, have been what discredited it. Maybe some radiometry dating technique could be used to show these Golden Plates aren't as old as he said they are, but it is not like he would have known of such methods. He could have been confident that they would be accepted as genuine. And if they never existed, why say they did? He could have just claimed that God gave him the Book of Mormon directly, as Mohammad said he received the Qur'an. But 11 others besides him claimed to have handled the plates, including 3 who said an angel showed them; several of these would have fallings-out with Smith, but none ever denied their written testimonies of the plates. Again, this isn't proof that the plates existed or that they were genuine, but it does seem to deal with the biggest objection to their current nonexistence.

And of the translations of the plates, the Book of Mormon itself: that it was written by men or a man, we agree. That this would lead to errors, mistakes, that sort of thing, we agree. Some have said the whole thing is poorly written, but I haven't seen examples. It does contain rather interesting and unique doctrine that as far as I know hadn't been seen elsewhere to that point. It also contains a lot of idiosynchrosies (sp?), but that doesn't mean much. A lot of books do. It contains an awful lot of awkward phrasings, but I don't see how that is proof that Joseph Smith made it up. After all, if it were just coming from his head he could explain things as clearly as he wanted. Whereas if he had to translate, then dictate to a scribe (for most of it, the scribe was Oliver Cowdery, also one of the 3 witnesses I mentioned above), there would be such phrasings. And given that most of the work purports to be an abridgment, and possibly a translation, from older historical records, that allows even more room for such turns of phrase. In fact, there are specific verses (none of which I can remember off-hand) that struck me as being translation/dictation artifacts.

Again, the record claims to be of a small group of Israelites who came to the New World around 600 BCE, led by God (if one doesn't believe in God then that is their real doubt), who split into two groups, the Nephites and Lamanites (intermarriage/assimilation with people already there is implied but not stated) and who had conflicts between themselves and each other, before being united by the post-resurrection visit of Christ (if you don't believe in the divinity of Christ, that is your real doubt), living as one people, then breaking off into two groups again with the same name but different bloodlines from the first division. One group eventually destroyed the other. But just before they did, two of the Nephites (Mormon, hence the name, and his son Moroni) took some of the religious and historical records of the earlier Nephites, abridged and possibly translated them, added a few first-hand accounts and their own commentary, and engraved it on these plates which Joseph Smith later got.

So that is why there are so many "odd bits" in the book. Joseph was translating, from an abridgment and translation of something much older. The important ideas (especially those related to the divinity and Atonement of Christ, which aside from everything else is the real message of the book) would come through, but the wording wouldn't be perfect. And that would help explain why there are so many references to animals and plants and materials in the New World that weren't there before Europeans showed up; the Israelites would have knowledge of them, and would either use the words for similar things, which would be translated as the former, or else would claim to have them for propaganda purposes.

At any rate, this explains satisfactorily to me all the idiosynchrosies of the book. One would expect to find such things in a book so complex, perhaps more so than a simple fakery.Again, this is just my feelings on the matter; I am not trying to prove anything. And in fact, a story so fantastic is one I wouldn't accept either, except that following the counsel of the book, I prayed about its veracity. The fact that I believe that I got an answer from God that I believe confirmed it is the ultimate reason I accept it, not the fact that to me it could be plausible.

Book of Mormon. If you don't mind, could you summarize it. Thanks.

Okay, I posted this in the cult thread before realizing I had placed it in the wrong thread, so I've moved it here. Hopefully here it will be discussed.

The book "the Mormon Docterine", oddly enough, is NOT MORMON DOCERTINE, and has some rather silly things in it


This brings up a very important question to me, and that is how does Mormon Doctrine relate with the Book of Mormon? From my research on the internet there are several differences between the two. I’m a little confused on how they differ, and how they relate.

The pic below is there to show my confusion between the Book of Mormon and Mormon Doctrine.

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads12/Mormon_Doctrine.JPG

What is this Mormon Doctrine? Is it another holy book? It appears there are several journals or articles noted in the MD, so is it talking about another book? How, or does it relate to Mormon theology, as in is it followed by faithful Mormons? Please, if I'm not asking the right question please state the correct way. I have no idea how MD fits in with Mormonism.

The book, "Mormon Doctrine", was written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, one of our apostles who died in 1985. He was by LDS standards a rather more conservative theologian. he wrote the book "Mormon Doctrine" as a fairly accurate encapsulation of what we believe, but it is not canon and thgerefore nothing that appears therein can be considered offical doctrine if not backed up by something that is canon. Critics of the church often overlook this fact - just because Elder McConkie believed it doesn't mean all Mormons do, or that it is doctrine.

As far as difference between what the Book of Mormon says and what Joseph Smith taught - well one would think that would be a sign he didn't write it, but that's another discussion. We believe that although God has been speaking to prophets for some time now, He hasn't revealed all of the truth all at once.

Thus although the Book of Mormon teaches a lot about the nature of the Atonement, it isn't as clear on the nature of God or the afterlife. It actually doesn't clearly teach that the members of the Trinity are the same being, as the above chart claims; it never gets specific enough, although I will note that when using the word "God" a Mormon may be referring to any one of several definitions. There is one God over all, of course.

And as far as God's nature being unchanging - His love, and His virtues, and all that, are the same; but as we, His creations, increase in glory then so does He. And as knowledge is created He increases in knowledge. And the Doctrine and Covenants (which are a series of revelations given to Joseph Smith and his sucessors, which do explain more fully the nature of God and the afterlife) explains that although hell, as a place or state of being, is eternal because it is given by Christ, who is eternal, those who go there will not be there forever. (Again, "hell" may refer to any of several things, which the Book of Mormon doesn't explain fully.) Also, polygamy as such isn't condemned. What it says, quite clearly, is that God will authorize it if He feels it is necessary, but that at all other times it is a sin. Both the revelation in 1842 authorizing it and the revelation in 1890 ending it conform to this doctrine.

An overview of the Book of Mormon (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents): what it actually says. This is going to be a little long because the book is 588 pages long (in English) and doesn't exactly follow a plot or anything. But my explanation will more or less follow the books in the order they appear (there are 15 books in the Book of Mormon, divided into chapters and verses like the Bible).

It begins as the firsthand recollections of a man named Nephi, who started out living in Jerusalem with his parents and siblings about 600 BCE. His father Lehi, a prophet, was not looked at kindly by the people of Jerusalem because (like others at the time) he insisted that the city would be destroyed. Eventually Lehi was told by God to leave the city, take his family (and several others, including another family that would intermarry with Lehi's) and wander around in the desert. At some point they reached the ocean, whereupon God told Nephi (now a prophet as well) to build a boat, and that they would be guided to a promised land. So after a rough sea crossing, they arrived somewhere in the Western Hemisphere.

At this point, Nephi's older brothers, Laman and Lemuel, who had been opposed to all this wandering, openly rebelled, and the group split into two - the Nephites, who followed Nephi and stayed true to God, and the Lamanites, who followed Laman and were a lottle less savory. (Population dynamics as explained at this point, as well as certain references to ancestry later, imply that both groups either assimilated with or absorbed native people already there, but nothing is ever specifically said.)

The firsthand account is continued by Jacob, another brother of Nephi, and several of their successors as prophets and kings of the Nephites. However, at this point it is interrupted - Mormon, the main author, interjects to say that he has discovered, among the historical records of his people that he is abridging, said firsthand account. So in a sense he was just quoting, although he may have simply physically added the record to the plates.

At any rate, he takes it from here, describing the struggles between the Nephites and the Lamanites. He notes that the Nephites are able to stay strong when the people are righteous, but when they fall into pride they tend to get conquered. He also mentions a group of Nephite missionaries who convert a large number of Lamanites, who once converted prove to be more faithful than most Nephites.

At any rate, this struggle continues, while Nephite prophets keep preaching the arrival of the Savior in Jerusalem. Although many scoff, they are vindicated. In what is essentially the key to the book, the resurrected Christ himself appears to them after his ascension in Jerusalem, showing himself and organizing a church. The two groups are both fully converted and completely mix, thus ending the distinction.

But after a time, of course, dissension arises and many fall away. The term "Lamanite" is applied to the unbeleivers and "Nephite" to the believers, changing the titles from ethnic to religious distinctions. But even the Nephites fall away, which is where Mormon picks up. He is a general and prophet among the Nephites, but he is disgusted at the fact that they would rather fight than repent, and he sees them as doomed to destruction. He adds some commentary, and turns things over to his son Moroni.

Moroni, at this point, adds what he says is the history of an even earlier group, the Jaredites, who had come to the Western Hemisphere after the fall of the Tower of Babel. They had likewise gone through cycles of faith, followed by prosperity, followed by pride, followed by destruction, which brough them to repentance and faith. This is what we call the "pride cycle" and is a major part of the Book of Mormon, as well as the Book of Judges in the Old Testament.

Now, it is my opinion, and not in any way doctrine of the church (although it may fit) that much of the Book of Ether (which is the name of the description of the Jaredites) is actually mythology, just like most of Genesis. But be that as it may. Moroni ends with more doctrinal commentary, and ends the book.

Thanks for the clarification Eran. To be honest, I posted the chart just as a reference to the differences, rather than wanting an explanation to them. Thanks for the extra input though.

I ordered the Book of Mormon through the LDS.org site, though it is a bit confusing. I used the share with a friend link, even though I was sending it to myself. I stated I didn’t want anyone to visit me, but I can already see that happening. Groan.

Just curious, will they contact me via phone first, or just show up? Hopefully neither. Anyway I can keep them from coming over? I just wish to read the BoM.

I ordered the Book of Mormon through the LDS.org site, though it is a bit confusing. I used the share with a friend link, even though I was sending it to myself. I stated I didn’t want anyone to visit me, but I can already see that happening. Groan.

Just curious, will they contact me via phone first, or just show up? Hopefully neither. Anyway I can keep them from coming over? I just wish to read the BoM.

I am fairly certain that if you said that you didn't want missionaries coming over, that they won't. I did lots of "media referrals" (which is what we call all requests for a book or video or anything like that) during my mission, and at least no one ever said they had asked us not to come. Of course, even if they had half the time they would never be home when we came by.

And as far as God's nature being unchanging . . . as knowledge is created He increases in knowledge.I've debated this point with my wife (who adopts Eran's view). There are serious theological problems with the concept that God increases in knowledge. Essentially, it is fatal to the concept of absolute faith. If there is something out there that God does not know, that may be the one thing that overturns the whole plan of salvation. (That's the essential problem with any unknown: we don't know what it is.) We arrive at the Throne of the Divine :king:, and He says (looking somewhat abashed :blush: ), "Sorry about the promise of eternal life, worlds without end, etc., I just learned last Thursday that it won't work . . . ."

. . . Just to illustrate that even Mormons can disagree on Mormon doctrine.

. . . Just to illustrate that even Mormons can disagree on Mormon doctrine.

Yes, for instance when I mean He increases in knowledge I don't mean that He is in for a surprise in re eternal life. But I don't believe He is omniscient in the true sense; He may know all possible futures, but He doesn't know which one will happen until it happens, at which point He gains that knowledge. Of course, I don't believe He experiences the present, or time in general, like we do either.

I have noticed my views are a little different from most Mormons. Have you noticed anything else?

I have noticed my views are a little different from most Mormons. Have you noticed anything else?(I assume you mean "anything else" about your posts. ;))

Oh, I really don't bother keeping track. Like you (and Matt, or most other reasonably rational people, for that matter), and after sitting through my share of Sunday School classes, I recognize that in a group of several million people, there are a wide range of opinions on doctrinal subjects.

From what I have noticed, your views are generally well within the mainstream, meaning that substantial numbers of Mormons will readily agree with what you say. That's why I generally don't bother posting on the subject: I hate being redundant. ;)

Not sure if this has been asked. But do Mormons believe in Guardian angels?

Not sure if this has been asked. But do Mormons believe in Guardian angels?

Well, there is no official doctrine, I think, regarding guardian angels. As should be clear from my account of the Book of Mormon, we do believe in angels, which play an important part in our description of the founding of the church. Now, a lot of members have stories about being helped by angels (including a lot of the pioneers), but since the church has no office to judge the validity of such claims (as it is my understanding that Catholics do), there is no standard way to evaluate such stories. I for one think it is possible that angels play a part in God's intervention with humanity, but I couldn't say for sure.

Stegyre, feel free to post here. You have (probably) been a member longer than me, so there are probably things you know that I don't.

I don't really have much to add. I think that's it in a nutshell. We don't typically use the term "guardian angel," but there are certainly scriptural references to the basic concept, such as this:And whoso receiveth you, there I will be also, for I will go before your face. I will be on your right hand and on your left, and my Spirit shall be in your hearts, and mine angels round about you, to bear you up.Of course, we have a different understanding of the nature of angels than the rest of Christianity (at least as far as I know), but Eran may have already covered that in an earlier post.

Hey Eran I have a question: (If you'd rather not revive this thread....again....then just let it lie.) What is the Mormon doctrine on Original Sin, and Total Depravity? The Wikipedia article seems somewhat contradictory on this point.

Also, going back to the polygamy thing: If polygamy were legalized in the United States, do you think the orthodox Mormon church would once again embrace it? I'm just looking for an educated guess here.

Hey Eran I have a question: (If you'd rather not revive this thread....again....then just let it lie.) What is the Mormon doctrine on Original Sin, and Total Depravity? The Wikipedia article seems somewhat contradictory on this point.

Also, going back to the polygamy thing: If polygamy were legalized in the United States, do you think the orthodox Mormon church would once again embrace it? I'm just looking for an educated guess here.

As per the articles of faith:

We believe man is to be judged for his own sins, and not for Adam's Transgressions.

What Adam did is his own problem. Surely I have done enough of my own sinning to be judged on my own merits.

As for Polygamy, I would be totally surprised if the church backed it. The church offically states that we ended polygamy on our OWN terms, and not because of the US goverment (secular sources differ on this, and I'm sure the goverment played a pretty big role), if I understand correctly.

If the Church brought back polygamy, I would leave the church. No way I want to have two wives.

The church offically states that we ended polygamy on our OWN terms, and not because of the US goverment (secular sources differ on this, and I'm sure the goverment played a pretty big role),
ROFL, seriously, what else would you expect them to say? "We sold out our values because they wouldn't let us be a state?" Maybe "Washington scared us?" How about "We realized we'd get nowhere if we continued in this belief?"

No religious organization is EVER gonna admit that they changed beliefs due to anything other than divine providence, because to do so would be a de facto acknowledgement of contrivance.

Again, I should say that people often say that the reason the church gave up polygamy was so Utah could become a state. No one has ever explained to me how the church would benefit from Utah being a state, but it is obvious how the church benefitted from an end to the intense anti-polygamy campaign the government was running against it.

Also, polygamy is an excommunicable offense even in nations where polygamy is legal. So, I wouldn't expect any major changes.

Again, we don't believe in original sin. We will be punished for what we do. As far as total depravity, I can't imagine God making a creature who by its very nature is totally sinful - to get there requires lots of sinning. He just gave us free will, and where we end up is our own choice.

And if I didn't want to rennew the thread, I wouldn't have linked to it in my sig . . .

Again, I should say that people often say that the reason the church gave up polygamy was so Utah could become a state. No one has ever explained to me how the church would benefit from Utah being a state, but it is obvious how the church benefitted from an end to the intense anti-polygamy campaign the government was running against it.

You're missing my point.

PS the church would and has benefitted immensely from Utah becoming a state.

No, I'm not missing your point - I see exactly what you are saying, even if the church is not divinely led, as we claim, then we aren't just going to turn around and say we gave up polygamy for purely practical reasons.

By the way, I ask out of genuine curiosity, how exactly has the church benefitted from Utah being a state? And are the benefits of statehood greater than the benefits of not being virtually at war with the federal government?

No, I'm not missing your point - I see exactly what you are saying, even if the church is not divinely led, as we claim, then we aren't just going to turn around and say we gave up polygamy for purely practical reasons.

Yes! :)

By the way, I ask out of genuine curiosity, how exactly has the church benefitted from Utah being a state? And are the benefits of statehood greater than the benefits of not being virtually at war with the federal government?

Well, I was only giving examples, I don't have an opinion as to why they exactly gave it up, though I believe the answer lies in the secular affairs. So, I'm not saying one benefit is greater than the other.

BUT, I will say that gaining statehood and ending undeclared war w/ the Fed govt. are hardly mutually exclusive. In fact, they have very much one and another to do with each other.

Plus, in the years afterwards, given the still lingering negative attitudes to toward Mormonism, having a 'state' of your own has provided a lot of benefits and protections.

Again, I should say that people often say that the reason the church gave up polygamy was so Utah could become a state. No one has ever explained to me how the church would benefit from Utah being a state, but it is obvious how the church benefitted from an end to the intense anti-polygamy campaign the government was running against it.

Also, polygamy is an excommunicable offense even in nations where polygamy is legal. So, I wouldn't expect any major changes.
Come on, it was because of pressure from the US government. I can see why you wouldn't want to admit it, but really: Do you believe that, so conveniently, God just said "Oh, now that you guys could really be helped by me changing my mind about polygamy, I've decided to: Knock it off, only one wife apiece"?

Again, we don't believe in original sin. We will be punished for what we do. As far as total depravity, I can't imagine God making a creature who by its very nature is totally sinful - to get there requires lots of sinning. He just gave us free will, and where we end up is our own choice.
God didn't create us sinful; He created us in the beginning with the potential for sin, and we crossed the line. We're born corrupted, with the tendancy to sin already in us.

I don't take this doctrine as far as some seem to, especially Calvinists, but it does seem to be widely supported in the Bible.

And if I didn't want to rennew the thread, I wouldn't have linked to it in my sig . . .
Ah, yeah....got it. ;)

Well, what happened was this: the church was under tremendous pressure, then the president of the church at the time, Wilford Woodruff, in a series of statements, said that the practice of polygamy was to stop. It had actually been somewhat on the decline, and wouldn't have been around forever anyways, but as he described it, he asked God what he should do - he also said that he would rather have let the federal government destroy the church as an entity than disobey God, if he had been told to maintain it. Of course, if you don't believe that he talked to God, then he would have just said that, and he stopped it because of pressure. At any rate, I would say it ws the anti-polygamy laws far more than the desire for statehood that led to it ending - even though as far as I can tell the anti-polygamy laws violate the 1st Amendment.

And although I agree that we are born with the capacity to sin, that doesn't make us "corrupted". it is inevitable that we will sin if we reach an age where we are able to do so, but that doesn't make us inherently evil. And the important distinction is that we believe that God planned all along that we would be this way, it is not that because of Adam or something we are born capable of sinning where otherwise we would have been perfect.

Well, what happened was this: the church was under tremendous pressure, then the president of the church at the time, Wilford Woodruff, in a series of statements, said that the practice of polygamy was to stop. It had actually been somewhat on the decline, and wouldn't have been around forever anyways, but as he described it, he asked God what he should do - he also said that he would rather have let the federal government destroy the church as an entity than disobey God, if he had been told to maintain it. Of course, if you don't believe that he talked to God, then he would have just said that, and he stopped it because of pressure. At any rate, I would say it ws the anti-polygamy laws far more than the desire for statehood that led to it ending - even though as far as I can tell the anti-polygamy laws violate the 1st Amendment.
I don't think it was the First Amendment. There's somewhere in the Constitution where it says all rights not reserved for Congress in the Constitution belong to the states (I can't find it) but I don't think it was in the first. But yeah, a federal law banning polygamy is, as far as I can tell, unconstitutional, but state laws generally would be, as well as, obviously, federal or state constitutional amendments.

And although I agree that we are born with the capacity to sin, that doesn't make us "corrupted". it is inevitable that we will sin if we reach an age where we are able to do so, but that doesn't make us inherently evil. And the important distinction is that we believe that God planned all along that we would be this way, it is not that because of Adam or something we are born capable of sinning where otherwise we would have been perfect.
So it's "inevitable" that we will sin, but we're not born already tainted? Huh?

I would say that Adam and Eve's children, if they had had children before the Fall, would have had the same choice Adam and Eve did, to eat the forbidden fruit (And thus disobey God) or not. (And obey Him) I don't think God "planned" that we were going to sin. This may sound like semantics, but there is a difference between knowing something is going to happen beforehand, and causing it to happen, or planning it out. If God plans our sin, then He is, in effect, responsible for it, which is incompatible with the Christian view of a perfect God.

I would say that God knows when we will sin, as He exists outside of time, and knows everything - but He doesn't "plan" it, and we weren't created to sin, just with the original choice, which we no longer have.

The interesting thing is that we believe Adam and Eve couldn't have had children before the Fall - they were not as aware of good and evil either, and thus what Eve did was necessary. hence God set the whole thing up by putting the tree in the Garden, with the intention that they would eat. And the tendency to sin is just a natural consequence of free will.

As far as the 1st Amendment, I think it was the 14th Amendment that requires state laws to conform to the 1st - although the anti-polygamy laws were federal anyways, and thus unconstitutional. At this point of course we wouldn't bring back polygamy even if it were legal, but all the fringe groups that still practice it could theoretically put up a big enough fuss to get them overturned. Although they usually get prosecuted not for polygamy as such, but for their tendency to force teenagers to marry older men, which is definitely not a 1st Amendment right.

The interesting thing is that we believe Adam and Eve couldn't have had children before the Fall - they were not as aware of good and evil either, and thus what Eve did was necessary. hence God set the whole thing up by putting the tree in the Garden, with the intention that they would eat. And the tendency to sin is just a natural consequence of free will.
What scripture verse is that based on?

Adam and Eve were sinless, but other than that, they lived a fairly normal life before the Fall. (Well, if anything can be said to be normal when you're the only two humans in existence, and you live in a garden with animals you named and walk with God every once in awhile....) Why couldn't they have children? There isn't anything sinful in having kids, I'm sure we could all agree.

If God set Adam and Eve up to sin, if He was the one who made it happen, then He's just as culpable as they are; which is, as I said earlier, incompatible with the view of a perfect God.

As far as the 1st Amendment, I think it was the 14th Amendment that requires state laws to conform to the 1st - although the anti-polygamy laws were federal anyways, and thus unconstitutional. At this point of course we wouldn't bring back polygamy even if it were legal, but all the fringe groups that still practice it could theoretically put up a big enough fuss to get them overturned. Although they usually get prosecuted not for polygamy as such, but for their tendency to force teenagers to marry older men, which is definitely not a 1st Amendment right.
So in your opinion, even if it no longer became a federal issue, and polygamy was legalized, the Mormons would not be in favor of legalizing or recognizing it? Interesting.

Well, we have, in the books of scripture that we use and no one else does, more descriptions of what happened during the Fall. Thus we are not likely to agree with mainstream Christians on this.

As far as polygamy, I could say that the purely secular reason of having too big of a stigma is enough to keep us from ever bringing it back - and we also believe that God allows it only in unusual circumstances.

Really? Hmm. Well, do you have a specific passage backing up the notion that Adam and Eve could not have children before the Fall, even from Mormon scriptures?

Why are you arguing that, anyway? I thought you didn't believe in Adam and Eve's existence.

No, I believe that they existed, and that literally there was a Fall - I just believe that it happened longer ago than 6000 years, and that Adam and Eve may have been physically the ancesters of other hominids. In other words, I don't know exactly how it fits in with paleontology, but I think it does. As far as not having children, I am fairly sure it says that, I will look it up.

No, I believe that they existed, and that literally there was a Fall - I just believe that it happened longer ago than 6000 years, and that Adam and Eve may have been physically the ancesters of other hominids. In other words, I don't know exactly how it fits in with paleontology, but I think it does. As far as not having children, I am fairly sure it says that, I will look it up.
I'm afraid I don't understand. You believe Adam and Eve were, basically, the first creatures that "evolved" past the level of sentience, so that they were the first to have free will? But if they were merely the first monkies to cross some theoretical line over which one is self-aware, wouldn't they merely be part of a large group of similar beings? They would be the only ones with free will among them, but wouldn't there have to be a group of non-sentient psuedo-humans who were almost biologically identical to Adam and Eve, around at the same time? Or do you believe God just let other life develope for a couple of billion years, then just plopped down two fully formed humans to complete the picture?

You say that they couldn't have kids before the Fall - why? Is there an automatic biological reaction to achieving sentience that leaves one sterile until one sins? And then once one sins, you automatically become fertile?

The short answer to all your questions is, I just don't know. Although we have an understanding of what Adam and Eve did and why, we don't really know how. In other words, we understand them to be the first humans, and we accept what science has to say about evolution (that is to say, most members do) but as it is not necessarily relevant, we don't know how they fit together.

It is important to remember that we don't come from monkeys, but from a long line of ape-like creatures that, as they eveolved, became more and more like humans, in terms of consciousness.

I don't know at what point they would have been advanced enough to have the knowledge of good and evil that is necessary for true free will (and sin), but that is the point at which Adam's tyransgression would have been necessary. In other words, we had to live in a sinful world, but that is something God Himself couldn't create - He needed for Adam and Eve to disobey Him.

After I posted this picture in the "ghost phone" thread, several people have asked for an explanation:

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/4391/mormonad1re6.jpg

The original picture was using the phone as a metaphor for prayer (which is an obvious metaphor), which is why it looks like that. But the text is a parody, part of a series made by BYU students of similar posters.

The doctrine in question refers to Doctrine and Covenants 29 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/29), which is how to distinguish heavenly visitors from other, less friendly sorts. What you do is offer to shake his or her hand. If it is an angel, he will be able to shake your hand (we believe angels are resurrected humans, thus have physical bodies). If he is a not-yet resurrected being who is a messenger from God, he won't shake your hand, as he can't. If he is actually a messenger of Satan, trying to deceive you, he will offer to shake your hand but you will feel nothing. Thus, if the ghost phone refuses to shake your hand, you know it's safe to answer.

This is, of course, very obscure doctrine, in the sense that it doesn't really come up much. Obviously, visitations from otherworldy messengers is not a frequent event, and I would not even be likely to believe those who claimed such. However, it's a point of doctrine well-known to a lot of Mormons, who would thus understand the joke.

The short answer to all your questions is, I just don't know. Although we have an understanding of what Adam and Eve did and why, we don't really know how. In other words, we understand them to be the first humans, and we accept what science has to say about evolution (that is to say, most members do) but as it is not necessarily relevant, we don't know how they fit together.
:goodjob: At least you're honest enough to admit that you don't have all the answers. Far too often, when dealing with matters of this sort people will attempt to just bluster through with some sort of double-talk that has nothing to do with the actual question.

I don't agree with your interpetation of scripture or scientific data, but I find your honesty refreshing.

I don't know at what point they would have been advanced enough to have the knowledge of good and evil that is necessary for true free will (and sin), but that is the point at which Adam's tyransgression would have been necessary. In other words, we had to live in a sinful world, but that is something God Himself couldn't create - He needed for Adam and Eve to disobey Him.
You make it sound like God wanted Adam and Eve to sin, and in fact set up to universe so that they would. Why would God, who is perfect and wholly good, want a universe tainted by evil? Why would He intentionally go out and set up a universe so that it would inevitably become a sinful one?

God created the world, and human beings with the potential to become evil, yes. Without that potential and the free will that is necessary for it, we couldn't truly love Him - but at the same time, He didn't want us to sin, or try and trick us into it.

thanks for the explanation.

Well, I'll put it this way: God doesn't want us to sin, but He knew that a universe in which we had free will - and thus had the potential to sin - was better than a universe in which we didn't - and thus could not progress and become more like Him. So although it is contrary to His will that we sin, He knew that it is the consequence of the wolrd in which we live, and the only way to prevent us from sinning is to take away our free will, which He is unwilling to do because the costs would far outweigh the benefits.

Is it true that all mormoms think I'm going to hell, or is that just a certian division of the church?

Wow. It's not really an all-new thread any more. You've got a lot of interest Eran.

Wow. It's not really an all-new thread any more. You've got a lot of interest Eran.

Yeah I'm surprised this "backwater religion" has sparked so much interest, but then I guess that's because as religions go it's interesting to read about something you know nothing about. I've heard alot about fundementalist religions and mainstream Christianity so the lesser known side of US faith is a positive must read.

:goodjob: Erin.

Is it true that all mormoms think I'm going to hell, or is that just a certian division of the church?

No, thats just me.

I think you have Mormons confused with somebody else.

Is it true that all mormoms think I'm going to hell, or is that just a certian division of the church?No, it's not true. I, for one, think you are going to the Elysian Fields: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/e/elysian_fields.html

They can speak for themselves, but I suspect Eran pegs you for Nirvana:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(band)

Oops! The other Nirvana:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nirvana1.htm
:mischief:

Last time I checked the pool entries, Matt was pegging you for Hammistagan (Zoroastrian limbo).

:D

EDIT: Cross-posted with Matt. Matt, I'll update your pool entry for D4R. Still holding the same position on Perfection? You know those are awfully long odds . . . ;)

Actually, the whole point of our activity in temples is that one need not be Mormon to get into heaven. After all, we have noticed that most people aren't Mormon. You just have to be willing to accept the full truth when it is presented to you, even if it is not until the next life, and you are good.

Now you may say, "I am not going to become Mormon in the next life, that would be silly." Well, either we are right, and thus you are refusing to accept the truth, which would be silly, or we are wrong and it is amoot point. But it is quite against church doctrine to say that someone is going to hell for not being Mormon.

And yes, Nirvana.

Wow, 8 pages about some wacky religion!! I have heard a lot of people talk about mormons cause they are pretty weird compared to other boring religions. I used to hang out with a japanese girl who was a mormon. But even the weirdness of mormonism wrinkles and collapses into dust when compared to the mysticism of the asian religions.

Perhaps, someone who is an expert should start a thread on Eastern mysticism. But yes we have a lot of complex doctrine which seems really weird out of context. I know several new members (they joined the church in the last few months or so) and it is quite different for them from someone who has grown up with it.

Thus, if the ghost phone refuses to shake your hand, you know it's safe to answer..
I don't understand, why is it good for the phone to NOT want to shake your hand? I'm lost. I mean, I read the whole post, I'm just lost as to why it would be better for the phone to not want to shake your hand than it would be for it to want to shake your hand; wouldn't that mean it was a messenger from God (thus a good thing)? I mean, how do you know you wouldn't feel him shake your hand without actually shaking it, which you wouldn't be able to do if it didn't want to.

I don't understand, why is it good for the phone to NOT want to shake your hand? I'm lost. I mean, I read the whole post, I'm just lost as to why it would be better for the phone to not want to shake your hand than it would be for it to want to shake your hand; wouldn't that mean it was a messenger from God (thus a good thing)? I mean, how do you know you wouldn't feel him shake your hand without actually shaking it, which you wouldn't be able to do if it didn't want to.*Grumble* You just had to bring up this obscure point, Eran. :shake:

Perhaps the best answer is just to quote the relevant scriptural passage that Eran and the "Ghost Phone" poster are alluding to:There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages, having bodies of flesh and bones — For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Secondly: the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you. If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand. If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear — Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his message.

If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him. These are three grand keys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.My own (i.e., one Mormon's) interpretation: if you are visited by someone/thing who claims and appears to be a messenger from God, you can ask it to shake your hand.

If it does (and can), it is an angel (a resurrected being with a body).

If it refuses to do so, it is the "spirit of a just man made perfect," i.e., a righteous person who has lived and died upon the earth, but not yet been resurrected. He cannot shake your hand, as he is, essentially, intangible. Neither will he try to do so, because that would be "deceptive" (to imply that he could, when he cannot).

If it tries to do so, and cannot, it is, essentially, a devil: one of the wicked spirits who rebelled against God, was cast out of his presence, and as a result will never have the opportunity all the rest of us have to be born, gaining a physical body, live and die. Why the devil, trying to deceive someone that he is a messenger from God, would do something that would give him away, is not explained, to my knowledge, certainly not within the scriptural canon.

(I recall asking about that very question when I was a teenager, and my Sunday School teacher had no definitive answer.)

Getting back to the "Ghost Phone," then: if the phone refuses to shake your hand (i.e., it acts like the "spirit of a just man made perfect," above), it's "safe" to talk to it (i.e., you know it's not the devil calling). It's just a very obscure bit of Mormon humor.

I hope that helps. More elaboration is always possible, but not always wanted or needed.

And on a final note: No, I've never been in a situation to attempt this experiment, nor have I heard of anyone else who has been, not even in Church History.

Thank you, I understand fully now.

Thank you, I understand fully now.My apologies!:goodjob:
;)

This is why I should shun deep doctrine (Kolob-esque, if you will) in this thread, but the picture fit the thread so nice I couldn't pass it up.

This is why I should shun deep doctrine (Kolob-esque, if you will) in this thread, but the picture fit the thread so nice I couldn't pass it up.I wouldn't call it "deep" doctrine, more like "tangential and obscure.";)

In case you recall, I stated I requested a Book of Mormon from the LDS website and they never sent it. It's been almost a month now. :hmm: Oh well.

In case you recall, I stated I requested a Book of Mormon from the LDS website and they never sent it. It's been almost a month now. :hmm: Oh well.Well, PM me or Eran your address, and remind us if you want it delivered with or without missionaries. If you want it "without," I can drop one in the mail to you this weekend.:)

Eran, you mentioned in another thread that you have 8 siblings. Is such a number common among Mormons, as it seems to be among Catholics, and much more conservative Protestants?

I'm curious becuase you don't seem very theologically conservative - although how that fits in with how many children you have, I don't know - but I have noticed that Catholics and conservative Protestants seem to have a great many kids. (I thought I was a conservative, but there are plenty who would put me and my family to shame, both theologically and kids-wise, at least in numbers.)

Have you noticed any similar correlation between theology and number of children? Or does that not touch Mormons at all? (Or am I just wacked?)

Well, Mormons do have noticeably large families. This is not due to opposition to birth control (any means besides abortion is fine by us) or necessarily because we feel compelled to "replenish the earth" (it is nice, but whatever) - apparently Mormons just like having a lot of kids. Even the more theologically liberal Mormons (and I am one, make no mistake) will often have 4 or 5 kids. I have noticed that hispanic Mormons often have relatively small families - as many as their Anglo Mormon counterparts, but that means fewer than a lot of non-Mormon Hispanics.

And my mom was motivated, I think, more by a desire to make sure we never felt the loneliness she had felt as an only child, than by religion (heck, she isn't even Mormon now). My older sister wants 4, just because she likes kids, and my younger sister is largely the same way. We see children as a blessing, although anyone who thinks otherwise is more than welcome to have fewer.

Interesting. It's just something I've noticed, that the more conservative a Protestant you are, the more kids you generally have. I don't know if that holds true everywhere, but I have noticed it before. For example, my family is pretty conservative, and I have three siblings. And there was one family we knew awhile back who was much more conservative, (Ultra-Calvinistic, speaks of "courting" instead of dating, girls always wear dresses, that sort of thing) and had something like 14 kids. I had trouble keeping track of them all.

Anyway, your Mother isn't a Mormon? I assume your Father is, then. Is marrying a non-Mormon common? Is she a Christian, then, and is a Mormon marrying a Christian less frowned upon than a Mormon marrying, say, a Muslim?

I recall hearing that the LDS Church believes the more children you have the higher up in Heaven you get. I'm probably saying that wrong.

I also heard that if your good enough and rise high enough in your faith both you and your spouse can become your own Adam and Eve of another world?

Is either of the above true or close to LDS beliefs? I've heard from RLDS members that these are beliefs that are held separately between the two Churches.

While I'm at it, what is the difference between LDS and RLDS?

I recall hearing that the LDS Church believes the more children you have the higher up in Heaven you get. I'm probably saying that wrong.

Not true at all.

I also heard that if your good enough and rise high enough in your faith both you and your spouse can become your own Adam and Eve of another world?

Even better (or worse, depending on your perspective), we believe that the righteous can become gods, in a sense.

While I'm at it, what is the difference between LDS and RLDS?

The RLDS broke off a little while after Joseph Smith was killed, following his son Joseph Smith III while most members followed Brigham Young. They have been steadily moving towards orthodox Protestantism over time, so there is little left in their doctrine/practice that they have in common with us and not other churches.

Anyway, your Mother isn't a Mormon? I assume your Father is, then. Is marrying a non-Mormon common? Is she a Christian, then, and is a Mormon marrying a Christian less frowned upon than a Mormon marrying, say, a Muslim?

My parents joined the church after marriage, then my mother left again. Everyone in the family but me has belonged to at least 2 religions in their life, it is all very complicated.

Yes, a high value is put on marrying within the church. )We also think that members of other religions should marry within their faith, as the kids will be more religious.) But what matters most is not the religion of the spouse but how much they will aloow their spouse to continue being an active Mormon.

Interesting.

I heard somewhere that according to Mormom doctrine, Christians after we die, don't go to Hell, but rather become the servants of Mormons, or something along those lines? What exactly is the Mormon theology on the set-up after death?

No, nothing like that. What happens to those who die without having fully embraced the Gospel (ie you know a lot about Christ's atonement, but not all, and some people have less) or received the necessary ordinances (eg baptism) will have a chance to have it taught, while on earth (in our temples) the baptisms and other ordinances are performed. So those who die without being "Mormon" (that is not the distinction, rather whether one received a baptism we condsider valid, etc) will get a chance in the next life.

Is that church tradition, or is that indicated somewhere in Mormon scripture?

There are a lot of scriptures that say this, more or less. I can find references.

From the other thread:

When God has something really important to say, He will make sure the prophet gets it right. And we consider the prophet to be better at interpreting what God has to say than we might; thus he is better off being told and repeating it, although each member of the church has the right to go to God to see if it is true or not.

I suggest you move this to my Mormonism thread, as it is getting a little OT.

So why didn't god make sure that the prophets got it right in the various other scriptures of yours? You've said that some of the times some of those prophets probably didn't interpret it correctly.

And once again, why does god need a spokesperson? Being that we're talking about your god surely he can make the message be heard very clearly and beautifully in each individual member?

Interesting. It's just something I've noticed, that the more conservative a Protestant you are, the more kids you generally have. I don't know if that holds true everywhere, but I have noticed it before. For example, my family is pretty conservative, and I have three siblings. And there was one family we knew awhile back who was much more conservative, (Ultra-Calvinistic, speaks of "courting" instead of dating, girls always wear dresses, that sort of thing) and had something like 14 kids. I had trouble keeping track of them all.


At least in some cases it's because birth control is considered sinful, go figure what the results will be..

That is a good question, ironduck, and one I never considered before. But I think I understand the reason.

I thionk that it would be more accurate to say that the earlier prophets had their messages misinterpreted after they received them, rather than that they themselves got it wrong. Like, (in my opinion), Moses really was a prophet and what he said did come from God, but later writers of Exodus through Deuteronomy added a lot of the Israelite legal code. And so on.

No, why does God not simply make it perfectly clear to each member whenever He wants something said to the whole church? First of all, it is not supposed to be that easy. We have to put effort into hearing from God, or we don't grow as much by the experience. That, in my view, is why some people don't hear from God - or believe in Him - at all; not that they are necessarily wicked, but that it is supposed to be a difficult process.

However, when He does need something said it is best to go to the prophet - someone who has years of experience in the matter - and the prophet can then tell the church. Members of the church can then receive a confirmation of its truth. I know this will sound weird, but it makes sense to us: it is easier to ask God if a particluar doctrine is correct, then to be able to hear it straight from God.

I don't know if that answers your question but I am not sure if I can explain it better.

And as far as birth control, the church basically says that it will not condemn any form of contraceptives, although abortion is still right out.

No, why does God not simply make it perfectly clear to each member whenever He wants something said to the whole church? First of all, it is not supposed to be that easy. We have to put effort into hearing from God, or we don't grow as much by the experience. That, in my view, is why some people don't hear from God - or believe in Him - at all; not that they are necessarily wicked, but that it is supposed to be a difficult process.


If you are simply told by your head of church that 'god says so and so' where the heck is the effort in that?

Seems to me there would be a lot more effort going into it if the church simply told its members that you all had to find out on your own rather than simply have your moral code dictated to you.

Well, what is the point of having a church anyways if we have to figure everything out on our own? Like I said, sometimes the leaders of the church can understand things that a lot of members can't but need to know.

But you said that the reason god didn't just tell each person was that it's not supposed to be that easy, that people need to put in some effort. Exactly contrary to what you're saying now.

Sometimes there are things we absolutely need to know, whether it is doctrine, or programs that affect the church, or whatever. That is when God speaks to the prophet. If it is about whether I should do something, God will speak to me.

So in other words the 'it shouldn't be that easy' argument is out the window? The church should just dictate the rules and only if someone has very specific questions, like, 'god, do you actually exist' god is the one to go to?

It sounds to me like you saying god is really just too busy to answer regular questions and so he has created an organization to do the tedious work for him.

The organization exists not because God doesn't want to do the tedious work, but because His followers benefit by having a network in which to act. The church exists for our benefit, not God's. Certainly, for questions like "does God exist?" or "what religion, if any, should I follow?" one must go straight to the source, and not trust anyone else's word no matter what credentials they claim.

And my point is - why not go straight to the source each time you want to know something about god instead of relying on other people to tell you what god thinks?

I don't see how it is a problem for God to tell certain people in detail about Himself, allowing those people to repeat it. Sure, it would require some work on the part of others to figure out what is most important, but they still have the option of contacting Him directly.

I think the real issue is whether you feel one can trust another human being in that position . . . but I think thta sometimes the messgae gets across better if someone who is really speaking with God tells it.

It's not about a god 'allowing' people to refer their conversations with said god. It's the entire concept of having someone who's 'chosen' by this god to deliver its divine message to the masses.

A very common theme across a variety of religions, though.

Sure, but I don't see there being a real problem if the person genuinely is chosen by God. The problem only arises if they claim to speak with/for God but don't really.

Exactly.

How could a human being truly speak for something as powerful as you claim god to be?

Why not? I don't see how there is a problem. God has to "dumb down" (if you will forgive me fore the term) everything He tells humans, but He still finds a way to get the message across.

Because they're humans! As you've said, humans make mistakes all the times. If god wants to send a message to people about the most error-prone way of doing it is to have some human explain it!

Question:

Do you have many doctrines similar to Scientologists, as in alien life, becoming the ruler of a planet after death, and other contact with aliens, who are a type of helper to mankind? Do you consider ETs to be angels?

Exactly.

How could a human being truly speak for something as powerful as you claim god to be?
Why couldn't a prophet speak for God if God enabled him? If God is all-powerful, then He cannot fail at anything He decides to do, including speak through an infinitely inferior being.

I second Katheryn's question, in a way. I've heard all sorts of stories about how Mormons think that they'll become gods of their own planets if they're really good, I'd like to hear what the actual doctrine is.

Why couldn't a prophet speak for God if God enabled him? If God is all-powerful, then He cannot fail at anything He decides to do, including speak through an infinitely inferior being.

If god uses the human as a tool to convey his message that human is no longer operating on human terms. They're something else entirely, god's teleprompters or whatever you wish to call them. But that's not how they're typically presented, they're presented as human beings who just happen to be able to have a chat with god every now and then and pass on what they were told.

Why couldn't a prophet speak for God if God enabled him? If God is all-powerful, then He cannot fail at anything He decides to do, including speak through an infinitely inferior being.

I second Katheryn's question, by the way. I've heard all sorts of stories about how Mormons think that they'll become gods of their own planets if they're really good, I'd like to hear what the actual doctrine is.

Because the prophets a liar. Any prophet nowadays would be called out fast with a medical check up.

If god uses the human as a tool to convey his message that human is no longer operating on human terms. They're something else entirely, god's teleprompters or whatever you wish to call them. But that's not how they're typically presented, they're presented as human beings who just happen to be able to have a chat with god every now and then and pass on what they were told.
Just because they're being used to convey God's message doesn't mean they stop being human. By that logic, a fire is no longer a fire if it's being used to send smoke signals - simply absurd. The actual inherent nature of something is not dependent upon what it is being used for.

Because the prophets a liar. Any prophet nowadays would be called out fast with a medical check up.
If he was a real prophet, he could probably perform miracles to back it up. Try bringing someone in for a check-up with fire raining down from the sky, or losing your eyesight, or something similarly awesome. ;)

Just because they're being used to convey God's message doesn't mean they stop being human. By that logic, a fire is no longer a fire if it's being used to send smoke signals - simply absurd. The actual inherent nature of something is not dependent upon what it is being used for.


I think you're purposely misrepresenting my point again.

To sum it up: A human being is a human being. Making decisions and interpretations as a human being. If god talks to a person on that person's terms then god's wisdom is bound to be subject to human interpretation and decision making.

If god renders a human being her tool then that person is no longer functioning on its own terms, it's functioning on god's terms and is thereby rendered something entirely different from a human being.

Fire, on the other hand, is a chemical reaction. Does it have an ability to interpret a message, and is that ability changed if we manipulate it?

Question:

Do you have many doctrines similar to Scientologists, as in alien life, becoming the ruler of a planet after death, and other contact with aliens, who are a type of helper to mankind? Do you consider ETs to be angels?

I'm not a Mormon, and I'll let Eran correct me, but no.

I think you're purposely misrepresenting my point again.

To sum it up: A human being is a human being. Making decisions and interpretations as a human being. If god talks to a person on that person's terms then god's wisdom is bound to be subject to human interpretation and decision making.

If god renders a human being her tool then that person is no longer functioning on its own terms, it's functioning on god's terms and is thereby rendered something entirely different from a human being.

Fire, on the other hand, is a chemical reaction. Does it have an ability to interpret a message, and is that ability changed if we manipulate it?
It wasn't on purpose, but I think was was indeed wrong. Let me try this again.

I see what you're saying, but I still disagree. God only directly speaks through a prophet, and He is picky in His prophets - in other words, God only speaks through those who He knows will say what He wishes accurately. (And when they don't do what He wants, there are clear consequences - Jonah getting tossed overboard, for example, or Abraham lying and getting thrown out of Egypt, and so on.) They are still independant beings, with free will, but God does make sure what He is trying to tell us is being told accurately. Thus, prophet's are still human beings, but they are still telling us the will of God.

Just because they're being used to convey God's message doesn't mean they stop being human. By that logic, a fire is no longer a fire if it's being used to send smoke signals - simply absurd. The actual inherent nature of something is not dependent upon what it is being used for.


If he was a real prophet, he could probably perform miracles to back it up. Try bringing someone in for a check-up with fire raining down from the sky, or losing your eyesight, or something similarly awesome. ;)

Yeah but I think the inherent problem is in that in history, we accept messages coming from God if they agree with our own political and religous agendas, who's truly to know what is the message of Jesus or God, did the Nicocean council not have reasons to excise some passages from the bible, they did, despite them bieng the words of the prophets or whoever? Who are we to say that they got it right? After all people supposedly have free will.

There is no means on Earth where God can deliberately change the mistakes we make in interpritation, in ten thousand years we may end up at the place he meant us to be but the suffering in the mean time is evidently counter productive, you can't just accept a piece of scripture as being right or wrong based on history or a prophet, as there are different ointerpritations, there's too much bias being persued in the text.

That is to say: are all the books outside of the bible wrong, are additions in other faiths right? How can we know? Someone has to be right, but the Abrahamic faiths have a wealth of different interpritations, that have fostered deliberation through the ages, the differ on key points, do you know who God spoke to in Islam, or in Judaism or in Christianity, is Mormonism a more correct version of Christianity than Catholicism? Judaism more so than Islam? To me it seems that you are right only by your own perspective, I see no reason to believe that you are right by default.

The way I see it, if there's a god who wants its wishes to be known I would think about the worst way to go about it would be to instruct some select humans to go about and tell others.

The simplest way would be to simply tell each person directly.

The way most likely to lead to confusion and conflicts would be to have certain people act as spokespeople.

From that I can only conclude that if there's a god who does indeed pick out 'prophets' that god enjoys all the crazy confusion and infinite abuse it brings with it. A sadist god.

I've certainly met my fair share of prophets, it sure is tough telling the true ones from the false ones ... if there are true ones. The conviction (or self-confidence) levels are certainly the same.

Eran, you saw my question on the miracles that are supposed to follow believers in the other thread. Does Mormonism have an explanation for the lack of obvious miracles being associated with their churches?

@El_Mac: we believe in miracles, but not to the degree that some do. And remember, miracles don't break the laws of nature, just of probability. I imagine that verse referred to the church at that time.

@Katheryn: Although we believe that there is intelligent life on other planets throughout the universe much like us, and even dependent on the Atonement just like us, we do not believe we have had contact with them. Of course angels are extraterrestrials; anything not native to earth is, by definition. But they are not the "greys" that allegedly go around abducting people. As for the whole ruling a planet, as I said the truly righteous will get more than that. And not just Mormons (ie people who accept the Gospel in this life) but everyone who is worthy of it.

Eran, you didn't reply to my question earlier if people really took that story seriously or if it was just seen as a joke?

Eran, you didn't reply to my question earlier if people really took that story seriously or if it was just seen as a joke?

Which story? The Brigham Young amputee one? Because that is pretty much just a joke, although for all I know he could have been right.

He could've been right how?

I mean, it could literally be true that such a situation would've given the man three arms in the next life. I doubt it, though, as we regrow all sorts of other stuff. But we take the story tongue in cheek, and anyways I only heard it once a long time ago.

I just thought that your idea of the after-earth-life was one of a higher stage without all the shortcomings of our primitive body..

No, we will still have a physical body, but it will be much better than our current model.

He could've been right how?He could've been right if a person who had a miraculously-restored arm kept that arm and had his original arm restored in the resurrection.

Practically speaking, that prospect is extremely unlikely, given what little [LDS] theology we have on the resurrection. Just giving you my own off-the-cuff description of that, without citations, resurrected bodies will be (a) physically perfect, (b) immortal, and (c) glorified. It's just not likely that a perfect, glorified body would have three arms, nor that God would punish an individual through all eternity for one foolish decision.

The Brigham Young anecdote may have occurred. I have certainly seen and heard it quoted before Eran, and it's the sort of thing we can believe Brigham would have said. But I doubt anyone believes it is literally true, and imho, Brigham himself would not have believed such a thing. It was analogous to the Mohammad and the Mountain (http://weblog.burningbird.net/2005/11/16/the-mountain/) incident: someone makes a foolish request, and the point of the response is not that it could not be done, but that it should not be.

Hope that helps.

Yeah, perfect body or no physical body is sort of the same in my view.. and the end result here is obviously the same either way; talking about 'an extra arm' makes no sense whatsoever if one's body is perfect :)

@El_Mac: we believe in miracles, but not to the degree that some do. And remember, miracles don't break the laws of nature, just of probability. I imagine that verse referred to the church at that time.

@Katheryn: Although we believe that there is intelligent life on other planets throughout the universe much like us, and even dependent on the Atonement just like us, we do not believe we have had contact with them. Of course angels are extraterrestrials; anything not native to earth is, by definition. But they are not the "greys" that allegedly go around abducting people. As for the whole ruling a planet, as I said the truly righteous will get more than that. And not just Mormons (ie people who accept the Gospel in this life) but everyone who is worthy of it.


Are you saying 'yes' to my question, then?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your answer. 'As for the whole ruling a planet...' the whole what? The truly righteous will get more than what? Than being a god on a planet? I don't understand how you can mix atonement (God's righteousness) and man's righteousness.

I mean I think that the definition of being a Christian is the fact that I have laid aside my own righteousness, and take up - or accept as my own - the righteousness of Christ. So, I don't understand how I can 'reckon' mine dead and also depend upon it for eternity's reward.... It's a contradiction. I wouldn't have needed a Savior if I could do it on my own...

You mention greys, who do you believe 'greys' are, then?

I just thought that your idea of the after-earth-life was one of a higher stage without all the shortcomings of our primitive body..
The problem with humans isn't that we have a physical body, it's that we're sinful, which is actually a problem of the spirit, which has "infected" the body as well. Why shouldn't you have a physical body after you die?

I think Eran's right on the money on this one, actually. I don't understand why some people believe that we'll be like angels or not have an actual body after we die - why would you believe such a thing? Humans aren't suited for such a "life".

@El_Mac: we believe in miracles, but not to the degree that some do. And remember, miracles don't break the laws of nature, just of probability. I imagine that verse referred to the church at that time.

That smacks of convenience, no offense. "Water into wine" is not really a miracle of probability (though I guess it technically is).

Is there something in LDS doctrine that redefines the presence of modern-day miracles?

No, as I think I explained before, a miracle never breaks the laws of nature, it just appeals to higher laws. Just as the flight of an airplane doesn't break the laws of gravity, it just appeals to higher laws. Except in this case the laws are beyond human understanding. So a miracle just means divine intervention. This is true today or 2000 years ago - there is some principle that turns water into wine (directly; we do it all the time with grapes, but it takes much longer) but it is beyond our understanding.

As for the "whole planet"; those who have become worthy (not that they earned it through their works, but that through the Atonement, through repentance, and through constantly striving to become better) will be able to have their own spiritual offspring and create their own worlds. But in doing so they will still be honoring God, who made them able to do so.

An airplane's ability to fly does not appeal to any higher laws. Aerodynamics are not above gravity.

The problem with humans isn't that we have a physical body, it's that we're sinful, which is actually a problem of the spirit, which has "infected" the body as well.

I'm not sinful, maybe you are. As for my question it was specifically directed towards mormon doctrine, and last time this was explained to me here we were put on earth for this finite life in order to gain some experience that would bring us closer to god in the next life. The way I understand that this life is not about us being 'sinful', it's about learning.


Why shouldn't you have a physical body after you die?

Why should you? For one, your body is dead. Maybe you'll get a new one (reincarnation), maybe you won't. From a soul perspective I don't see any need for a body.


I think Eran's right on the money on this one, actually. I don't understand why some people believe that we'll be like angels or not have an actual body after we die - why would you believe such a thing? Humans aren't suited for such a "life".

Of course we're not suited for such a life if we are our bodies. But you're the one talking about souls and life after death, in which case our bodies cannot be terribly important. So from that perspective it surprises me that you think humans somehow need a body. My approach is more spiritual than yours, it seems.

No, gravity is not broken, it is just that its usual observable effects don't aplly when there are other forces at work. "Higher" may not be the right word; the principles of aerodynamics don't violate the principles of gravity, but they do produce a different effect.

And there is nothing unspiritual about having a body - it is part of who we are and will allow us to do more than we could without one. As far as sin, since we all disagree on the definition it would just be fair to say that depending on how one defiens it all humans are more or less subject to it, or not.

I'm not saying it's unspiritual to have a body. I'm saying it seems less spiritual to think that humans need to be bound by bodies or will be less capable without bodies.

It is not being bound - we will still have spirits, but we will also have bodies. I don't see how possessing an additonal part of our soul is supposed to restrict us. But then, since all sorts of different philosophies have had all sorts of different views on spirit vs matter, it is not surprising that we seem to differ here.

It's really quite simple. How capable are we here on earth locked to our bodies? Not very. We need to invent technology to make us capable - essentially freeing us from the restraints of our mammalian confines.

On the other hand, a soul able to exist and make its will be done without a body is immensely capable. It can travel at any speed, go anywhere, move anything to anywhere, they sky is the limit.

Maybe with a more perfected body we can do all those things; it is only the weak imperfect bodies we have now that place restrictions.

What kind of perfected body are you talking about?

A body that has no trouble with any temperature, that has no trouble with any gas or liquid, that can travel at the speed of light - or faster - and can move through an object at will?

Seems to defy all the laws of physics.

It only seems to defy the laws of physics, based on what we know so far - just like the whole airplane thing.

Anyways, we don't know all that much about what sort of body we will have after being resurrected so this is all speculation, but we do know that it will not create restrictions.

For something to be physical one would think it would relate to the laws of physics.

What can you observe in the world around you that does not follow the laws of physics?

I am not saying it doesn't follow the laws of physics, I am just saying that the actual complete laws of physics goes beyond what we have observed to follow the laws of physics. Someone with a good knowledge of gravity but no knowledge of aerodynamics would naturally assume that airplanes would never work.

I understand that, it's just that what you're suggesting goes against pretty much everything we know about the physical world. Not just one thing (like, say, humans might be able to fly), but everything!

In essence, what you're saying is that we live in an illusion.

No, we are just playing with a limited rule set.

So how come the observable universe appears to comply quite well with those rules?

Because by definition we can only observe the parts that fall within those rules.

Umm.. what?

So how come the observable universe appears to comply quite well with those rules?

The laws we ascribe to our universe are only reasonabely accurate. The laws we use are merely a 'rough estimate' for what's really going on. I can get that.

Yeah, and there are other parts that it is beyond our power to observe, which have no relevance to us now but are nonetheless important and may become relevant to us later.

No, as I think I explained before, a miracle never breaks the laws of nature, it just appeals to higher laws. Just as the flight of an airplane doesn't break the laws of gravity, it just appeals to higher laws. Except in this case the laws are beyond human understanding. So a miracle just means divine intervention. This is true today or 2000 years ago - there is some principle that turns water into wine (directly; we do it all the time with grapes, but it takes much longer) but it is beyond our understanding.

As for the "whole planet"; those who have become worthy (not that they earned it through their works, but that through the Atonement, through repentance, and through constantly striving to become better) will be able to have their own spiritual offspring and create their own worlds. But in doing so they will still be honoring God, who made them able to do so.

If they create worlds that then fall, will they also be the savior of the world?

That's like my question "will people sin in Heaven?"!
That thread is here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169217&highlight=will+people+sin+in+heaven

I don't know how redemption will work out. You have to understand that we see the Fall as an inevitable part of the process of creation, so all worlds are subject to sin and death. I would speculate that they will be redeemed through Christ just as our world has been, but I don't know.

The laws we ascribe to our universe are only reasonabely accurate. The laws we use are merely a 'rough estimate' for what's really going on. I can get that.

I'm not saying otherwise!

What I'm saying is that our models explain reasonably well what we observe. We can make fairly good predictions based on those models.

For instance, our models tell us that a solid form object such as a human has a difficult time penetrating another solid form such as a rock without destroying either or both.

Our models also tell us that matter changes phase relative to temperature. Taking a human being and placing it on the sun is likely to have an effect on the human being.

The laws of physics Eran seem to suggest exist apparently do not manifest themselves in our visible universe, at least not to any large degree. That's why I'm asking the questions I'm asking, but I seem not to get my message across.

Well, I think of Eran's God as having access to a super-advanced teleporter/materialiser (ala Star Trek). Perfectly feasible within reality, but currently beyond our ability.

If one assumed 'Star Trek' levels of technology for God (don't laugh!) then the miracles like the parting of the Red Sea and the 'water into wine' would be child's play

(the 'teleporter' thing is merely an analogy.)

But that leads to my earlier point; in that case god is merely using technology to free himself the way we use technology to free ourselves.

Going by my view of a spirit there's no need for a physical body and no restrictions apply. If god needs a teleporter or materalizer to do his majik then he's still rummaging around with gadgets like we are, and prone to their limitations.

he said its an analogy. what he means is that god is omnicient/ompipotent and can do stuff we cant.

I don't know how redemption will work out. You have to understand that we see the Fall as an inevitable part of the process of creation, so all worlds are subject to sin and death. I would speculate that they will be redeemed through Christ just as our world has been, but I don't know.

Well, it seems to me that this would be a point of contention with the established Christian Church.

So far, what you have said is not quite enough to be contentious enough to separate from Christianity. It seems to me that it would be based on this type of issue. Being a ruler on another planet is not past the pale, but being a savior there would be. Can you ask? How about the Nicene Creed? Do Mormons have a problem with it? If so, what?

he said its an analogy. what he means is that god is omnicient/ompipotent and can do stuff we cant.

But omnipotentence means outside the laws of physics. Eran says that god is not outside the laws of physics, but that laws merely exist that allows him to do things that we consider miracles.

Or that the laws of physics include God's omnipotence ... it's not an unreasonable position (and remember, Eran doesn't think of God as being classically omnipotent)

That's my point - Eran says god is not omnipotent and that he is indeed within the laws of physics. But Eran can probably clarify.

Meanwhile, it sets limits on god that don't exist in my proposition.

Well, we believe that God has limits. All this talk of technology is an analogy. There may well be laws of physics that allow a physical body to move safely and instantaneously across the universe, but we do not have the capacity to observe these laws. I mean, the laws of nuclear physics existed long before we knew anything about them; there may be other laws, that we in our present state will never understand except when God reveals them.

And @Katheryn, we do not accept the Nicene Creed. It was written by men lacking the divine authority to speak for God on doctrinal issues. There are many other areas in which we disagree with the rest of Christianity; I am well aware of this.

Being a ruler on another planet is not past the pale, but being a savior there would be. Can you ask?Not all questions have definitive answers (at least, not everything has yet been revealed, as I'm sure any Christian will agree). However, given what we do believe of LDS theology, it seems extremely unlikely that we would be "saviors" in the sense that Christ is our Savior.

For Christ's atonement, it was essential that he not only suffer for our sins, but also die and be resurrected (i.e., lay his life down and take it up, again). After this life, when we are all resurrected, however, we will be immortal, incapable of death. Hence, how could we atone for anyone else (a world or otherwise), as we could not lay down our life.

How about the Nicene Creed? Do Mormons have a problem with it? If so, what?

The Nicene Creed (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm): Eran's already given you the short answer. Here is my take, with a little more detail:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.Okay. We might debate what this actually means, but we're pretty much on the same page, here.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Again, essentially okay.
God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, No.
begotten, not made, Yes, and to some extent, this is true of us all: everyone's spirit is "begotten, not made" of God. Hence the expression, "I am a child of God." Christ, however, has the distinction of being the only one whose body was also begotten of God.
being of one substance with the Father No.
by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, Okay.
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, Some agreement and some disagreement, here.
and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.Okay.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,Okay, although we usually use the term "Holy Ghost," but I'd say we were talking about the same entity. the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.Not at all sure what this means, but essentially the doctrine of the Trinity, which we disagree with.
And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church.Well, we believe there is but one Church of Jesus Christ, with the divine authority to perform gospel ordinances, and built upon a foundation of apostles and prophets. We just disagree as to which Church that is . . .
We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.Okay.

Well, we believe that God has limits.
What are the limits?

Besides being unable to do the logically impossible (hence 2+2 never = 5, and He cannot make a stone so heavy He cannot lift it) God cannot make us like Him by His own will alone. We must be involved from the inside. Thus God must subject us to pain and suffering, and we must have free will, in order for us to become like Him.

I'm not sinful, maybe you are. As for my question it was specifically directed towards mormon doctrine, and last time this was explained to me here we were put on earth for this finite life in order to gain some experience that would bring us closer to god in the next life. The way I understand that this life is not about us being 'sinful', it's about learning.
You've never in your entire life done anything morally wrong? You've never lied, or stolen, or said something mean just to be spiteful? You've never hit or pushed someone just because you were mad at them, you've never acted badly towards someone because you're angry at what another person did?

Forgive me if I'm the least bit skeptical.

Why should you? For one, your body is dead. Maybe you'll get a new one (reincarnation), maybe you won't. From a soul perspective I don't see any need for a body.
So? What does it matter if my previous body is dead? That is irrelavent, why shouldn't we get a new body?

Of course we're not suited for such a life if we are our bodies. But you're the one talking about souls and life after death, in which case our bodies cannot be terribly important. So from that perspective it surprises me that you think humans somehow need a body. My approach is more spiritual than yours, it seems.
I don't think we need a body for our souls to exist, no. However we were created physical beings, and are only whole as physical melded with the spiritual. Our souls could exist elsewhere without a physical body, but we wouldn't be us, we wouldn't be humans.

Sorry for hijacking your thread Eran, I just wanted to counter a few of those points. (If you want me to stop this line of conversation, just tell me.)

Of course we're not suited for such a life if we are our bodies. But you're the one talking about souls and life after death, in which case our bodies cannot be terribly important. So from that perspective it surprises me that you think humans somehow need a body. My approach is more spiritual than yours, it seems.
God created the universe. He's the one who decided that 2+2=4. Why couldn't He break that if He wanted to? If He is the one who created the universe, why can't He ignore its laws if He so wishes?

You've never in your entire life done anything morally wrong? You've never lied, or stolen, or said something mean just to be spiteful? You've never hit or pushed someone just because you were mad at them, you've never acted badly towards someone because you're angry at what another person did?


I doubt that you truely think that these are actual sins.
Plus, it's tough to define what is moral and what isn't.

I doubt that you truely think that these are actual sins.
Plus, it's tough to define what is moral and what isn't.
Yes, I do believe those are all "actual sins". Why? Do you think those are all good things?

You've never in your entire life done anything morally wrong? You've never lied, or stolen, or said something mean just to be spiteful? You've never hit or pushed someone just because you were mad at them, you've never acted badly towards someone because you're angry at what another person did?

First of all, our views of what is 'sin' probably differs. I don't really have one as the term is irrelevant for me. However, when people say that I am sinful I know very well what they mean, and I can assure you that you have no business calling me sinful. You are free to note that I'm prone to errors just like other humans, but leave your 'sin' out of it.

Yes, I do believe those are all "actual sins". Why? Do you think those are all good things?

I certainly think that they're immoral (or at least undesirable) actions. But I don't judge the actions by who's doing them, only by their consequence and intent.

First of all, our views of what is 'sin' probably differs. I don't really have one as the term is irrelevant for me. However, when people say that I am sinful I know very well what they mean, and I can assure you that you have no business calling me sinful. You are free to note that I'm prone to errors just like other humans, but leave your 'sin' out of it.
Why can't I call you sinful? Every human being who has ever lived (Except Christ, and He was also/really God) is sinful, including myself. I've personally done at one time in my life or another all the things I listed - I'm certainly a sinful person. Why do you take such offense at merely being included with the rest of your species in what they all are?

Why can't I call you sinful? Every human being who has ever lived (Except Christ, and He was also/really God) is sinful, including myself. I've personally done at one time in my life or another all the things I listed - I'm certainly a sinful person. Why do you take such offense at merely being included with the rest of your species in what they all are?

Because no human is inherently 'sinful'. A human may act unkindly or in error, in which case you can point that out.

Because no human is inherently 'sinful'. A human may act unkindly or in error, in which case you can point that out.
If you program computers, you are a computer programmer. If you camp, you are a camper. If you sin, you are a sinner.

That seems simple enough to me.

If you program computers, you are a computer programmer. If you camp, you are a camper. If you sin, you are a sinner.

That seems simple enough to me.

Making errors is not a vocation.

I do so much more good than bad towards other people. What does that make me? Good.

Making errors is not a vocation.

I do so much more good than bad towards other people. What does that make me? Good.
But it is a lifestyle we all partake in. ;)

First of all, who is juding that you do more good than bad? You? No human is qualified to judge such a thing; and you are not objective in this matter, so you are not even as unqualified as most. (Neither would I be qualified to judge my own goodness.) Secondly, I would disagree - if a bank robber only robs banks on Tuesdays and Thursdays, then most days he does not rob banks. Does that mean he isn't a bank robber, because he only robs banks some of the time? Of course not. He robs banks - thus, he is a bank robber. People do bad things all the time - and thus are bad.

I think Elrohir is using the term "sinner" as the polar opposite of "a morally perfect person". If one hasn't made perfect moral decisions at every opportunity, one is a sinner.

It's just a definition. What we tend to mostly disagree with the definition of a sin.

But it is a lifestyle we all partake in. ;)

Perhaps making errors is a 'lifestyle' for you. It surely isn't for me. In fact, I generally try to avoid them.


First of all, who is juding that you do more good than bad? You? No human is qualified to judge such a thing; and you are not objective in this matter, so you are not even as unqualified as most.

Given that 'good' and 'bad' are human inventions the only ones who can in fact ascribe such terms are humans. If I was unable to tell if I was being 'good' or 'bad' then how in the world would I be able to function relative to other people? Your premise is deeply, deeply flawed.

Secondly, I would disagree - if a bank robber only robs banks on Tuesdays and Thursdays, then most days he does not rob banks. Does that mean he isn't a bank robber, because he only robs banks some of the time? Of course not. He robs banks - thus, he is a bank robber.

So he robs banks for a living, so? It's a vocation of his choosing. You really didn't understand it first time around, so let me repeat: Making errors is not a vocation. Robbing banks for a living is a vocation.

People do bad things all the time - and thus are bad.

Such flawed logic again. If a person does a million incredibly good things and a single little bad thing, is that person 'bad'? Of course not.

edit - I just realized 'vocation' has a double meaning. I don't mean it in a religious sense, just to clarify.

I think Elrohir is using the term "sinner" as the polar opposite of "a morally perfect person". If one hasn't made perfect moral decisions at every opportunity, one is a sinner.

It's just a definition. What we tend to mostly disagree with the definition of a sin.

I know that our definitions probably differ, which is why I pointed that out at first.

The trouble with calling people 'sinners' is that it implies they're constantly doing wrong and that they should feel guilty. It's a horrible way to keep people down and gives people a horrible self-image. The feeling of guilt is extremely destructive when it consumes people, probably more destructive than any other feelings.

Perhaps making errors is a 'lifestyle' for you. It surely isn't for me. In fact, I generally try to avoid them.
I try and avoid them as well - but that doesn't mean I always succeed. Everyone makes mistakes, without exception. I doubt anyone goes through a single day without making at least one - thus, making mistakes is a "lifestyle".

Given that 'good' and 'bad' are human inventions the only ones who can in fact ascribe such terms are humans. If I was unable to tell if I was being 'good' or 'bad' then how in the world would I be able to function relative to other people? Your premise is deeply, deeply flawed.
My premise is fine, it is yours that is flawed. Good and Bad are not human inventions, they are absolutes laid down by God.

You can say that you are "better" in that you have done fewer bad things than, say, Ted Bundy. But simply being "better" than that piece of slime doesn't make you "good". A shirt can be less stained than another shirt, but that doesn't make it completely clean, same concept.

So he robs banks for a living, so? It's a vocation of his choosing. You really didn't understand it first time around, so let me repeat: Making errors is not a vocation. Robbing banks for a living is a vocation.
What if he robs banks for fun, and works at 7-11 the other days? What if he never actually spends the money he takes from the banks, but buries it, never intending to come back to it, instead? Is he still a bank robber? Of course he is. It does not matter whether he is supported by robbing banks, just by whether he does rob banks.

Such flawed logic again. If a person does a million incredibly good things and a single little bad thing, is that person 'bad'? Of course not.
Compared to Someone who has done none, then yes, they are. Compared to someone who has done a million "bad things", then they are still bad - just not quite as bad. But God doesn't grade on a curve, being better than the comptetition doesn't make you perfect.

edit - I just realized 'vocation' has a double meaning. I don't mean it in a religious sense, just to clarify.
No confusion here. :)

The trouble with calling people 'sinners' is that it implies they're constantly doing wrong and that they should feel guilty. It's a horrible way to keep people down and gives people a horrible self-image. The feeling of guilt is extremely destructive when it consumes people, probably more destructive than any other feelings.
People do consistently do bad things. That's a fact of life, and denying it is ridiculous. You shouldn't be consumed by your guilt, no, but that does not mean denying that you do wrong things.

Judging humans on the scale of your god of choice is incredibly useless. Humans are humans and should be considered such. Calling a human an 'idiot' or 'bad' or 'ugly' or any other derogatory term is just destructive and serves no purpose but to bring that person down.

If you want to feel bad because your god feels so good to you, go ahead. Leave me out of it.

As I said before, Elrohir and ironduck do not have fundamentally different views of humanity, just different definitions of the word "sin". I would say that humans have natural impulses to do both good and bad; we also act on these tendencies to differing degree. The way most Christians use the term, a person is sinful if they ever commit a sin; ie ever act contrary to the will of God. It is not an insult to point out that humans are imperfect.

Judging humans on the scale of your god of choice is incredibly useless. Humans are humans and should be considered such. Calling a human an 'idiot' or 'bad' or 'ugly' or any other derogatory term is just destructive and serves no purpose but to bring that person down.

If you want to feel bad because your god feels so good to you, go ahead. Leave me out of it.
Why is it derogatory to acknowledge something that is factual? People commit sins. Ergo, people are sinful beings, and sinners.

I really don't understand why you are so vehemently against such a basic idea.

Why is it derogatory to acknowledge something that is factual? People commit sins. Ergo, people are sinful beings, and sinners.

You are such an ugly idiot, piece of crap! (compared to someone's arbitrary deity of choice)

The above was to demonstrate my point, not directed at you. But how useful was that? Not at all useful, on the contrary it was useless and destructive.


I really don't understand why you are so vehemently against such a basic idea.

I think I've explained myself very clearly, I think you simply don't want to understand me because the concept of 'sin' and 'sinners' is so deeply ingrained in you and you would feel 'sinful' to discard it.

The way most Christians use the term, a person is sinful if they ever commit a sin; ie ever act contrary to the will of God. It is not an insult to point out that humans are imperfect.

And yet it is remarkably widespread how the concept of 'sin' leads to a profound feeling of guilt. You make it sound like it's an abstract concept that has no real effect on people, but in truth it's a horrible concept that brings people a lot of pain and suffering.

Maybe in its extreme form it causes guilt,but for almost everyone I have ever met who believes in sin, it just serves as a way to focus themselves on being better people.

Eran, I have met and know of enough people to see that it's extremely widespread and common. It pains my heart because it's so hard to change, it becomes so deeply ingrained. People who get away from it feel liberated, free from a life-long depression.

Hmm, I have never seen it in action, and I know probably as many religious people as you. It could be that it is not that common in Mormonism. But I think the real issue is not that religious people feel worse about the bad things they have done (even athiests can do that) but that they have a wider definition of what is bad.

Religious people can also have narrower definitions of what is wrong, too.

Religious people can also have narrower definitions of what is wrong, too.

Well, then maybe "different" is a better term than "narrower" or "broader". And we can't talk about "religious" vs. "non-religious" people as monolithic groups. I mean, my view of what is right and wrong is undoubtedly different not only from you but from members of other rleigions.

You are such an ugly idiot, piece of crap! (compared to someone's arbitrary deity of choice)

The above was to demonstrate my point, not directed at you. But how useful was that? Not at all useful, on the contrary it was useless and destructive.
That isn't a very constructive thing to say - but then, you said it, not me, or my God. My point isn't that people are worthless - they are worth the life of Christ, thus the message of Christianity isn't a message of self-condemnation, but of hope - but merely that people do commit bad actions. I don't see why you can't accept that.

I think I've explained myself very clearly, I think you simply don't want to understand me because the concept of 'sin' and 'sinners' is so deeply ingrained in you and you would feel 'sinful' to discard it.
You haven't explained yourself at all. All you've done is ignore what I've said and put forward your own wrong version of it. I believe that is called a "strawman" argument, and is fallacious.

That isn't a very constructive thing to say - but then, you said it, not me, or my God. My point isn't that people are worthless - they are worth the life of Christ, thus the message of Christianity isn't a message of self-condemnation, but of hope - but merely that people do commit bad actions. I don't see why you can't accept that.

I have never claimed people do not sometimes do things that are unkind. What I have done is addressed why I think calling people 'sinners' is incredibly wrong.


You haven't explained yourself at all. All you've done is ignore what I've said and put forward your own wrong version of it. I believe that is called a "strawman" argument, and is fallacious.

You are truly being arrogant. I put serious effort into explaining and showing to you why I dislike the concept of 'sin' and calling people 'sinners'. All you have done is to refuse my views because you dislike them. I will not bother explaining this to you any further.

Go troll someone else. I'm done with you.

If you both want to continue this conversation, it might be better suited to a new thread.

If you both want to continue this conversation, it might be better suited to a new thread.
Sorry Eran.

I don't particulary care to continue this, but if you want to Ironduck, start a new thread or PM me.

I certainly think that they're immoral (or at least undesirable) actions. But I don't judge the actions by who's doing them, only by their consequence and intent.

Well, don't you think that 'immoral' and 'sinful' are synonyms? I do.

And @Katheryn, we do not accept the Nicene Creed. It was written by men lacking the divine authority to speak for God on doctrinal issues. There are many other areas in which we disagree with the rest of Christianity; I am well aware of this.

Well, in what way?

So far, I don't see very much that would be considered 'heretical'. Concepts of the trinity and divinity of the Holy Spirit are very complicated and many different sects of Christianity think differently on the issue - they are all still considered Christians. Surely there is more than this that separates Mormons from the traditional Christian church.

What is that?

What separates us the most is our belief that Christianity, not long after the deaths of the apostles, suffered an apostasy, in other words a loss of authority, and thereafter began drifting away from the original doctrines and organization of the church as it had originally been organized. Thus in 1830 the church was restored, with the organization of the LDS Church being a return to what Christianity had been originally.

Well, don't you think that 'immoral' and 'sinful' are synonyms? I do.

I think that the actions the Wise Sage (aka. Elrohir) proposed are either immoral or undesirable. We cannot describe all of those actions as sinful, though. In the context of this thread, 'sinful' tends to refer to things that God does not approve of. Because God approves of some of those actions, they're not all sinful. This discussion regarding 'sin' is assuming, of course, that the God of the Bible exists, but this is an assumption that I assume people will accept.

To answer your question, no, I don't think that immoral and sinful are synonyms.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4603876&postcount=7

A couple can't get married while pregnant? Is there any way around that? Could they get legally married, and then have the Mormon service after the childbirth?

There's two types of marriges in LDS, one is Temple marrige where your marriage is sealed(in the eyes of God) for all of eternity, the other is the normal religious marrige where your "married till death do you part".

There's alot more of a difference between them, but that seems to be the under lying thing that stands out when my morman friends tell me.

The baby would count as an observer?

Yeah, to be married in the temple one must be worthy, which means among other things no sex before marriage. If they did, and she got pregnant, the thing to do would be to get married outside the temple immediately, then after a year to have the marriage sealed in the temple. Because a sealing (which makes it etarnal) can be done either as part of the marriage ceremony, or a year or more afetr the original wedding (as often happens when a couple converts).

Why are they worthy after being married a year? What makes them more worthy then? Because it's expected that they have repented their 'sin' or something?

It takes more than just waiting a year; they have to go through the entire repentance process, but waiting a year is just part of it.

I have a question.I know this hypothetical guy who wants a beautiful virgin wife for his own liking after many miserable attempts to settle down with slutty chicks and have been talking about joining a religion.Do you think that he can successfully infiltrate and pretend that he is a mormon till he gets the girl of his dream(who is a mormon) and get married without getting caught?

I have a question.I know this hypothetical guy who wants a beautiful virgin wife for his own liking after many miserable attempts to settle down with slutty chicks and have been talking about joining a religion.Do you think that he can successfully infiltrate and pretend that he is a mormon till he gets the girl of his dream(who is a mormon) and get married without getting caught?

Sounds suspiciously like these "advice for a friend I know"... ;)

Sounds suspiciously like these "advice for a friend I know"... ;)
Nah!You are being overtly suspicious.You are hearing things,dude.;)

All i am saying is that in order to join a church(i've been considering the thought of joining the methodists not far from where i live) i can find things to do that is more productive(such as charity and meeting pious people) instead of some mundane and trivial things that i do on a regular basis-such as going to bars,calling up some chick for booty-call,smokin weed,playing video-games..etc.

I can't imagine that a marriage to a believing Mormon would be satisfying to a non-believing Mormon.

It takes more than just waiting a year; they have to go through the entire repentance process, but waiting a year is just part of it.

What do they have to repent, exactly? Who has been hurt?

I could marry a Mormon chick as long as she loves me unconditionally.I see nothing wrong with that,El Machinae.

What separates us the most is our belief that Christianity, not long after the deaths of the apostles, suffered an apostasy, in other words a loss of authority, and thereafter began drifting away from the original doctrines and organization of the church as it had originally been organized. Thus in 1830 the church was restored, with the organization of the LDS Church being a return to what Christianity had been originally.


And there was no remnant?

If not, then what happened to all the people in between? All lost?:eek:

What do they have to repent, exactly? Who has been hurt?

They, have, in sinning. I know you hate that word but we do believe that repentance is necessary for some things even if you haven't hurt anyone else. Repentance is the act of turning back to God.

Do you think that he can successfully infiltrate and pretend that he is a mormon till he gets the girl of his dream(who is a mormon) and get married without getting caught?

I wouldn't recommend it. She would catch on eventually and then you both would end up miserable - you for living a lie and her for being married to someone who claimed to be something he wasn't.

And there was no remnant? If not, then what happened to all the people in between? All lost?

Once the authority to speak for God was gone, the church began to drift away from its original beliefs and practices, so eventually it was all gone. But as for the billions of people who lived between then and the Restoration of the church, as well as for the billions of people who lived and died without even hearing of Christ, salvation is still (of course) achievable; depending on what they choose in the next life.

How about divorces if people have had a temple ceremony?

Eran do you live in Australia or America? And if you live in America, would you happen to know any Mormons from the East Coast?

I live in the Washington DC area, and am from western NY originally, so most of the Mormons I know now live on the East Coast. Of course, most of them are transplants from Utah, but I do know some native Easterners (like myself).

As far as divorce, if a temple marriage results in civil divorce it does not automatically end the sealing. If one or both later want to get married in the temple they need to get the sealing annulled (I think is the word), which basically says it is no longer in force. I know people who have done this.

Everytime i read an secular account of the early days of Christianity(especially in the first 4 centuries after the supposed death of Christ) in antiquity,it does not surprise me to see Mormonism exist in a USA as what happen in Rome and its tributary territories.

Those who truly follow and obey God in all forms, and endure and overcome the world, get their own universes. But it is really hard, of course. To become like God in the truest sense (although always dependent on Him) is the highest goal of Mormonism.

And the garments (as we call them) aren't "magic". They are given to those who receive certain blessings in the temple, to serve as a reminder of these promises and as a symbol of the faith. They have other symbolic values, but we consider these too sacred and important to discuss (even amongst ourselves) outside the temple.

How do you reconcile this belief with christianity?

As far as divorce, if a temple marriage results in civil divorce it does not automatically end the sealing. If one or both later want to get married in the temple they need to get the sealing annulled (I think is the word), which basically says it is no longer in force. I know people who have done this.
So its simmilar in a way to a Catholic Annulment if a Couple is married in a Catholic Church?

@CG: It's not an annulment if my understanding of annulment is correct (which it might not be). We are saying that although the marriage was sealed, it is now unsealed (as when Peter was told that he had the power to bind or loose on earh, and it would be bound and loosed in heaven) and thus no longer valid.

@Demetrias: What is the problem? Why shouldn't I be able to reconcile it with Christianity? If you are referring to our doctrine of exaltation, I find nothing wrong with the idea that God both loves us enough, and has the power, to raise us far above our current state. Paul alluded to it when he said we were joint heirs with Christ.

I mean were can you find it in the bible. We are joint heirs with christ in salvation. Second Jesus doesn't get his own universe. He gets this one the only one. So how do you reconcile that belief with the christian bible. God and Jesus are one in the bible and we go to heaven when we die. There is only one heaven and one new Jerusalem and we all go there.

Do I go there too?

I have no idea ironduck ask yourself.

Umm.. myself? But I don't know. You said we all go there, so you apparently know something. That's why I asked you.

So you believe God created Jesus, right? Or just that Jesus is entirely separate from God?

Ironduck i said we meaning christians so i said ask yourself because as far as i know this is the first time we meet and you can't generally tell if someone is a christian in two sentences. So if you are a christian then yes if aren't and want to convert i would be happy to help you go to heaven and the new jesusalem with me. But what i was asking was how Eran reconciles Mormon beleif in some select people getting their own universes with the biblical veiw of one afterlife shared by all.

Ironduck i said we meaning christians so i said ask yourself because as far as i know this is the first time we meet and you can't generally tell if someone is a christian in two sentences. So if you are a christian then yes if aren't and want to convert i would be happy to help you go to heaven and the new jesusalem with me. But what i was asking was how Eran reconciles Mormon beleif in some select people getting their own universes with the biblical veiw of one afterlife shared by all.

Ah ok, well some christians say I go to heaven even though I'm not a christian. I guess you're not one of them. Does that mean you think I go to hell, or what happens?

We all go the same place if we are worthy, but we are also able to become like God and to become creators as God was. What specifically is the Bible verse that says there is "one afterlife shared by all"?

And yes, Jesus is a separate being from God the Father and is, like us, a spirit child of God. However he is much greater than us.

yes you go to hell. sorry. but you can convert right now or anytime before you die. I haven't decide if hell is eternal or not yet. Its depated by some people and i haven't picked a side.

I was thinking revelation did.

Ah well. Guess I picked the wrong religion then.

Ah well. Guess I picked the wrong religion then.It's even worse than you imagine: in Demetrias' view, so did all of us mormons. Ironduck, you're not just going to hell :devil:; you're going to a hell full of mormons! :yup: :high5:
;)

Reminds me of a joke. A devout Christian dies and goes to heaven. As he gets there he sees that it is at the top of the cliff, but that no one goies near the edge. So he asks one of the angels why that is.

"Oh, hell is at the bottom of the cliff. The sights there are so horrible that it would be impossible to enjoy heaven after seeing them."

But the man is really curious. So he asks if he can take a look.

The angel replies, "Well, you have your free will. But I warn you that what you see will never stop affecting you, and heaven won't be the same afterwards."

But the man is not to be deterred, so he peers over the edge. At the bottom, instead of the horrible wasteland full of suffering souls he had imagined, he saw verdant fields and farmland. So he points this out to the angel.

"Well," says the angel, "it looks like those damned Mormons have been irrigating again!"

:lol: special insider Civ-Mormon bizarre humour!

I dont see Mormons ending up in hell. The way I see it, so long as they have the minumum requierment of beliving that Jesus is their Savior. How you confess your sins is up to you and God. That they too would end up in heaven. I dont know why many Evangical Christians deny that Mormons are not Christians. I guess Mormons and Catholics are on the same boat when Evangical protestants say that Mormons and Catholics are not Christians :shake:.

And yes, Jesus is a separate being from God the Father and is, like us, a spirit child of God. However he is much greater than us.

Are Mormons the only Christian types to believe that? because its makes alot more sense if Jesus and god are seperate.

We aren't the only non-Trinitarians, but we do seem to be the ones who get mentioned most.

I dont see Mormons ending up in hell. The way I see it, so long as they have the minumum requierment of beliving that Jesus is their Savior. How you confess your sins is up to you and God. That they too would end up in heaven. I dont know why many Evangical Christians deny that Mormons are not Christians. I guess Mormons and Catholics are on the same boat when Evangical protestants say that Mormons and Catholics are not Christians :shake:.
I guess it just boils down to what a Christian really is. Is it someone who believes that Christ existed? I don't think so, there has to be more to it. I would say you have to believe Christ was the Son of God, the Messiah, and trust in Him to save you. Going by that definition, I suppose Mormons would be considered Christians, in a way.

I didn't used to think that they were, solely based on their non-trinitarianism, but I had a friend who recently "converted" to non-trinitarianism, (Martin Zender and his books....I really don't like that guy.) which really made me think about this.

As for Catholics not being Christians, I've never really understood why some Protestants demonize Catholics the way they do. I think the Catholic church is wrong on a good many theological issues - but the Pope isn't the anti-christ, the Catholic church isn't the beast, and Catholics aren't evil, or even non-Christians. I think it's more of a cultural thing than a religious thing.

yes you go to hell. sorry. but you can convert right now or anytime before you die. I haven't decide if hell is eternal or not yet. Its depated by some people and i haven't picked a side.
That's another thing I've looked into recently. (Martin Zender again.) It actually just boils down to how you translate the greek word "aion", which can be translated as "eternity" or "an age". I would translate it as eternity, though, since it's said, even in the same verse, that those in hell will spend a "aion" there, and those in heaven will spend their own "aion" there. If you're going to say hell isn't eternal, then to be consistent you have to say heaven isn't eternal either, which isn't a trade off that I'm willing to make. Well, whatever - I'd suggest reading up on it for yourself.

(Sorry for threadjacking Eran, those are two just interrelated issues that I wanted to address at the same time.)

We aren't the only non-Trinitarians, but we do seem to be the ones who get mentioned most.
The JW's are also a non-trinidarian Christianity. Sorry if I am stepping on your toes on this :blush:.

yes you go to hell. sorry. but you can convert right now or anytime before you die.

I forgot to ask my standard questions:

1) What about children who die before they're baptized? Do they go to hell?
2) What about people who have never heard of christianity?
3) How certain are you that non-christians go to hell? 100%? 99%?

I knew about the JW's, but from my (limited) understanding they do not consider Jesus divine the way we do.

I knew about the JW's, but from my (limited) understanding they do not consider Jesus divine the way we do.
When you were doing the door-to-door thing did you ever bump into a JW doing the door-to-door thing?

If so did you fight for the door?

If so did you win?

We did have the occasional run-in. Actually, if we were knocking a street and they showed up they would just take the other side. Once we were in an apartment complex but we managed to knock everyone else in the time it took them at one door. Once when I was visiting a member the JW's showed up - they were so taken aback by the fact that I could identify their accents as being from El Salvador, and I think they were a little scared of us, so they left. Once when I was sick they came to our apartment, but I didn't talk to them myself.

Once when I was visiting a member the JW's showed up - they were so taken aback by the fact that I could identify their accents as being from El Salvador, and I think they were a little scared of us, so they left.Are you sure it just wasn't your biceps?

If you have ever seen my biceps, you would be sure as well. Although they were a couple little old ladies. I always got the impression the JW's were a little scared of us, although i'm sure they say the same thing about us.

So is that yes or no to you have big biceps?

I have scrawny arms and a big belly. I look like a spider.

Yes that could explain it. There are some pretty wicked scary spiders out there. Maybe the little old ladies were arachnaphobic.

What was the best free food or beverage you scored while going door to door?

Did anyone ever hit on you when you knocked on their door? If so, did you reciprocate?

No one hit me - if they had, I would have gotten in trouble for reciprocating. I did get attacked by a few dogs but they were small. All the real damage I incurred was self-inflicted.

As far as food - let's see, I gota bunch of free bread from some people who ran a bakery from their house, lots of water, that sort of thing.

No beer? Bread and water? How ascetic are mormons?!

I don't know, I could only remember the times we randomly got bread and water from people at doors. Also we got other stuff. There was a member of a ward I was in who owned a taco stand, and he would always give us free tacos.

Oh, I forgot, mormons don't drink alcohol, right? Actually, thinking about it I guess bread and water makes sense, since people can't ask you in for a cuppa tea or coffee either.. cake, are you allowed to eat cake?

I have had cake, champurado (hot chocolate with cornmeal, actually good) all sorts of stuff. But mostly water as it was often hot out. And for some reason only bread came tomind at first, but it was good bread.

Do Mormans really believe the a book that was written off of plates that no one saw, and had to be changed after the original book was lost?

Why do mormons always go knocking on people doors trying to convert them.

Does that EVER work? I really wonder why you guys waste your time.

Nobody likes a door to door salesmen and a door to door missionary is the same thing.

Are Mormons allowed to have their own private prayers and meditations?

Probably already been asked, but...

Do Mormons typically vote Republican, Democrat, or other?

Why do mormons always go knocking on people doors trying to convert them.

Does that EVER work? I really wonder why you guys waste your time.

Nobody likes a door to door salesmen and a door to door missionary is the same thing.

Why do door to door salesman do it if it never works? It's a question that answers itself. Sorry Erin just common sense got in there before you could reply:)

Are Mormons allowed to have their own private prayers and meditations?
They aren't allowed to do anything in private! Even shower!

Actually, going door to door is far more effective than anyone outside the church realizes. It is still about the least effective way we have of finding people but we do find them.

We are encouraged to pray in private often, of course, which is good because everyone has to pray for things they don't want to say out loud.

Mormons usually vote Republican but are a lot more centrist than most Republicans, and certainly span the spectrum. For example, Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader (I think) is Mormon.

As for the plates which we say the Book of Mormon was written on: what happened was that a portion that Joseph Smith had translated was lost by his scribe, Martin Harris, and that part was not retranslated. As for the plates themselves, 3 witnesses signed a statement saying they had been shown the plates by an angel, and 8 more that they had seen the plates; although many later fell out with Smith and the church, they didn't deny this claim.

Has any Mormon had doubts in their faith whenever they dont sucseed in defending their faith or does a poor job defending the faith?

Why do religious people feel a need to defend their faiths?